[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4556) making appropriations for 
the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes; and pending 
that motion, I ask unanimous consent that the general debate be limited 
to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1220


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4556, with Mr. Boucher in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, your transportation appropriations subcommittee brings 
to the floor today the 1995 transportation appropriations bill. This 
bill has been crafted after a great deal of hard work and hearings and 
meetings with Members of the House, with the assistance and cooperation 
of all members of the subcommittee, and with the administration.
  I want to congratulate our Members, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Price, 
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Foglietta, and Mr. DeLay and Mr. Regula for a job well 
done. Their advice and counsel have been of tremendous assistance in 
putting this bill together. Each Member worked diligently and hard and 
the product is truly theirs as well as mine.
  I want to pay special tribute to my friend and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Without Frank's help 
every step of the way in the administration of this committee and the 
production of this bill, this simply would not have been possible. And 
in a very personal way I want to say what a tremendous pleasure it has 
been to work with such a tremendous individual.
  I want to also thank our staff, Linda Muir, Jan Powell, John Blazey, 
Cheryl Smith, Rich Efford, and Del Davis, our chief of staff, for a 
tremendous job in helping put this bill together. I cannot explain the 
countless hours, the numerous phone calls, the times late at night or 
the work on weekends that these people have put in to make sure that 
wise decisions were made and that people were treated fairly. And to 
the staff on both sides, to all the Members, and especially to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I want to say a very sincere thank 
you.
  Let me take just a minute to summarize the bill we bring before you 
today. The bill is within our 602(b) allocation in domestic 
discretionary budget authority and outlays. This required many painful 
choices. Funding for operations of several important agencies and 
grants for transit operating assistance have been reduced in order to 
stretch our dollars as far as possible and provide funds for continued 
investment in this Nation's highways, bridges, transit systems, and 
airports.
  Mr. Chairman, this involved some very difficult decisions on the 
committee's part. Real spending reductions are a part of this bill. For 
example, the Coast Guard's operating account is funded essentially at 
last year's level, with a reduction of over $50 million from the budget 
request. Operating expenses for the Federal Aviation Administration and 
the Office of the Secretary are basically at last year's levels with no 
allowance for inflation. Transit operating assistance has been raised 
$100 million above the budget request, but that is still $100 million 
below the 1994 level. Amtrak's operating assistance subsidy in this 
bill is $62 million below Amtrak's request and $10 million below the 
President's request. Funding for operations and research at the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is below the 1994 level.
  While some of the sting from these cuts will be lessened by the 
governmentwide decision to reduce the Federal workforce, funding for 
operation and maintenance activities and operating grants of the 
Department of Transportation are indeed very tight for the next fiscal 
year.
  The bill assumes a pay raise of 1.6 percent for both civilian and 
Coast Guard military personnel, which is consistent with the budget 
request but less than that approved in the Treasury/Postal Service bill 
and by the Armed Services Committee. The recommended bill also assumes 
no Coast Guard funding from the DOD appropriations bill this year.
  Funding for investment in new infrastructure is also very tight in 
this bill. We have allocated those resources in accord with the 
subcommittee's investment criteria and based on a verifiable need for 
funding in the next fiscal year. Some agencies, such as Coast Guard, 
FAA, and Amtrak, receive increases in capital funding in this bill as 
compared to last year. In each of these cases, though, the increase was 
less than the administration's request.
  Total funding in the bill for Federal highways is $19.8 billion. Now 
that is slightly below last year's level. We would have liked to have 
provided more, but this was just not possible, given the constraints on 
the committee this year. We just could not do it. However, this funding 
level will still allow most criteria highway projects across this 
country to proceed without undue delay.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we bring to the House today has been developed 
taking into consideration the concerns of the various authorizing 
committees of the House. We have had frequent and close communication 
with the legislative committees this year, particularly the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation. We have shared our thinking and our 
recommendations with them throughout the process, and I am very 
grateful that the Committee on Public Works and Transportation moved a 
bill this year and moved it using criteria essentially the same as the 
criteria which we developed in our subcommittee last year.
  That has made our job so much easier. I know they had to undertake a 
great deal of work to do that, but we really appreciate it. I am not 
aware of any significant problems on jurisdictional matters. One 
example of the new process involves the treatment of special highway 
projects. Under the agreement this year between the Transportation 
Subcommittee and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, no 
funding has been recommended for specific highway or transit projects 
not either currently authorized or included in the national highway 
system bill which we passed a few weeks ago.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill, crafted in a 
difficult budget year. It provides for the essential transportation 
needs of this country, it places a priority to the extent possible on 
investment programs and criteria. We have worked in a truly 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 if 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.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4556, the fiscal year 1995 
transportation appropriation bill. Just to repeat what I said before 
the Committee on Rules and what I said when we marked up the bill in 
full committee, I said this is not a perfect bill, it is probably not 
even a good bill, but it is the best bill I believe we could achieve 
under the circumstances. Our subcommittee, under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], was operating under very serious 
budget constraints this year, which left us unable to address many 
highly meritorious initiatives which I hope we can deal with next year.
  I do believe, given the finite resources available, we have tried in 
this legislation to provide the necessary funding for the Nation's 
transportation network.
  There were many competing requests for resources among all the 
modes--highways, transit, rail, aviation. This bill attempts to balance 
these very valuable and, I think, very, very valid demands.

                              {time}  1230

  As the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, I do have a 
problem with funding which was added for certain projects after the 
subcommittee completed its markup, and I have made my concerns known to 
the majority, and I make my concerns known to the body, and I say, 
``Never again, never again.''
  I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not also follow up on what 
the gentleman said with regard to the staff. I would like to express my 
appreciation for the diligent work of the subcommittee staff: Del 
Davis, Rich Efford, Cheryl Smith, and Linda Muir, and our minority 
staff, Jan Powell, John Blazey, Glenn LeMunyon, and Connie Veillette.
  They have all done an outstanding job. I also want to pay tribute to 
the chairman of the committee on two points.
  One, as the Members know, last year the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Carr] insisted, which is very difficult to do particularly in this 
environment, but insisted, that investment criteria be developed 
against which we could measure the many requests for transportation 
projects. He thought it was important to determine what the taxpayers' 
return on the dollar would be, rather than selecting projects on the 
basis of seniority, power, who is in the leadership, who serves on the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and all that other 
process that we go through around here, and I think he did a good job.
  I also want to make a personal comment about the chairman. There has 
not been a fairer person that I have dealt with in the body, not a 
fairer person. I say to the gentleman, I will miss you, Bob. I think 
you have done a good job. I think you have been fair. We have had no 
differences. I wish other committees could do this. I hear all these 
rhetorical statements about bipartisanship. Frankly I think we have 
actually had it. So, I personally am going to miss you, and I say 
Godspeed. I think you have done an excellent, excellent job.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4556, a bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for fiscal year 1995.
  I, too, want to begin by commending our leaders, our chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], our ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for their work this year, and all 
the members of the subcommittee led by these two. We have maintained a 
solid bipartisan approach, and the bill reflects this spirit of comity 
and cooperation. We are going to miss the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Carr] as he retires from this body. We all wish him well, and my hope 
is that our loss will prove the other body's gain. I also want to thank 
our fine professional staff of this subcommittee, Del Davis, Rich 
Efford, Linda Muir, and Cheryl Smith, for their absolutely critical 
contributions to our efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill increases the efficiency and effectiveness of 
our Federal investment in transportation. These investments are 
critical to economic growth, and I am pleased to have had a role in 
developing this program. Without these investments our roads would be 
more congested, our airways more dangerous, our public transportation 
less efficient.
  Of course I am particularly grateful for the recognition of North 
Carolina's transportation needs and priorities in this bill. Critical 
highway priorities, public transportation planning and investment, 
railroad improvements, improved passenger service, transportation 
safety; all of these needs of our State are addressed in this bill. 
North Carolina is trying to meet the challenges posed by its diverse 
economy and geography, and I am grateful for the committee's support of 
our transportation goals.
  The bill also responds to our Nation's pressing need to reduce the 
deficit. The bill is $236 million below the administration's request 
for transportation spending. This has made it necessary to make some 
tough choices and to set some real priorities. We are spending less. We 
are also spending what we do spend in a more intelligent and targeted 
fashion, in a way that pays off for our economy, for all of our people.
  In allocating these scarce transportation dollars, Mr. Chairman, the 
committee considered testimony given in oversight hearings and 
recommendations from the authorizing committees and from State boards 
of transportation. The projects have been subjected to exacting 
criteria. These are projects that will promote economic growth. They 
will create jobs. They will save lives. They will protect the 
environment. It is a bill we can be proud of, a bipartisan product that 
I urge my colleagues to support.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will make key transportation 
investments in a cost-effective manner, and Members can vote ``aye'' 
with confidence.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for two purposes. First to 
compliment the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Carr, and the distinguished Member from Virginia, 
ranking minority member, Mr. Wolf, for a strong fiscal year 1995 
transportation appropriations bill.
  I also rise to alert Members to a transportation-related problem 
which I hope will be addressed over the next 4 months, and I realize 
there is report language in the bill on this, but I am very concerned 
about the American Automobile Labeling Act, which is scheduled to go 
into effect on October 1, 1994.
  This provision requires automobile companies to put a label on all 
new vehicles stating the country of origin of the parts, the engine, 
and the transmission, as well as the location of assembly.
  Two years ago, I stood here and opposed this Labeling Act because it 
was misleading to American consumers and it would hurt manufacturers 
and suppliers in my congressional district. Most disturbing to me is 
that the label would not show the significant contribution of American 
labor to the vehicle's overall value.
  The American Automobile Labeling Act is not fair because:
  First, it excludes the value of final assembly labor, thereby failing 
to show the value of American labor;
  Second, it will average the content from different countries for the 
same model, thereby masking the content of specific cars and sending a 
very misleading message for consumers.
  Third, Canadian parts and labor are considered ``American'' under the 
provisions of this law, again creating more confusion for the American 
public.
  Not only is this a bad law, but with less than 4 months to go from 
this law taking effect, no final rule has been issued by the Department 
of Transportation.
  The lead time necessary for putting the labeling law into place is 
significant. Without final regulations, suppliers in my district should 
not be expected to take on this additional burden and administrative 
nightmare to comply by October 1.
  We in Congress have a responsibility to fix this law so it is fair to 
both consumers and manufacturers. And with no final rule issued, at the 
very least, we should delay the implementation date for at least 1 year 
to give our suppliers and manufacturers the time they need to comply.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my continued concerns over 
the American Automobile Labeling Act [AALA] which was enacted into law 
in the fiscal year 1993 DOT appropriations bill. Although automobile 
manufacturers must have the required window labels on new vehicles 
offered in dealer showrooms effective October 1, 1994, the Department 
of Transportation has still not issued the final regulations telling 
suppliers and manufacturers how to comply with the law. This lack of 
leadtime placed an unreasonable burden on suppliers in my district.
  The purpose of the AALA was to ``provide consumers with the best and 
most easily understandable information possible regarding the national 
origin of automotive equipment. * * * So what is the problem? The 
problem is that the labels consumers will see on their cars beginning 
October 1 of this year will contain flawed and misleading information.
  The principal problem is the way that parts are counted under the 
AALA. For example, if a manufacturer buys a part which as 69 percent 
United States/Canadian content from a wholly owned supplier, the 
manufacturer gets to count the 69 percent as domestic. But if the exact 
same part with the same domestic content levels is purchased from an 
unrelated supplier, none of the value could be counted as domestic.
  The AALA sends a signal to suppliers that they may as well import the 
entire content of a part because their domestic content will be rolled 
down to zero until it exceeds 70 percent. This roll-up/roll-down 
formula was specifically rejected by our negotiators in the NAFTA. It 
seems to this Member that if a formula like this is not accurate enough 
for trade purposes, then it is not accurate enough for consumers.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman for his remark and point 
out that I am the author of the bill that was passed several years ago 
calling for content labeling. The committee is very familiar with this 
situation, and we spoke with NHTSA and the Office of the Secretary of 
the Department of Transportation [DOT] about gradual enforcement on the 
requirements because the manufacturers have not had the appropriate 
time to craft their own procedures to comply with the law.

                              {time}  1240

  So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be monitoring that very carefully, 
and we highlighted that at the bottom of page 101 of our committee 
report.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Foglietta], a valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal 
year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill.
  The Transportation appropriations bill is special because dollar for 
dollar, investments in transportation not only move people and goods, 
they create jobs. When we build a new transit line, manufacture new 
bases or improve a highway, people go to work. That makes this 
appropriations bill almost unique.
  However, because of the deficit reduction bill we passed last year, 
we faced incredibly tight budget constraints. And we had to make tough 
choices in the investments we made. I would have liked to have seen 
more funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor.
  I would have liked to have seen more funding go toward modernizing 
older transit systems.
  I would have liked to have seen more funding for the development of 
high-speed rail. But we did the best we could with limited resources.
  In our bill, we set standards to measure the bang for the buck we get 
out of our transportation investments. We established investment 
criteria. Like any investor, we asked tough questions. We looked at 
costs and benefits. This is the way fiscal decisions should be made. I 
applaud the leadership of the majority and minority, and especially the 
fairness of my chairman, Bob Carr, and I wish him well, as well as the 
other members of the committee on both sides, and our staff in making 
these tough choices.
  To me, our bill is a powerful example of why the A-to-Z proposal is 
such a bad idea--why we must continue cutting the deficit in a genuine 
way--not on an ad hoc basis or by using gimmicks.
  The job creating investment decisions in this bill have been 
deliberated on their merits, after a full set of hearings, 
thoughtfully, deliberately. Not in a politically charged, budget 
cutting frenzy on the House floor. It is A to Z that should be cut.
  This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], a member of the committee.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4556, the Transportation 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. I want to thank the chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Carr], for his 
leadership and fairness. He will be missed next year.
  I also want to thank our ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], for his dedication to writing a good bill and for 
his support of the interests of other members of the subcommittee.
  I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their 
hard work and cooperation.
  As has been stated earlier, this is not a perfect bill. It does not 
provide enough money in some accounts and that will be a disappointment 
to many. Some programs are funded above what some Members will find 
acceptable. However, considering this year's budget constraints and the 
number of requests, it is as good of a bill as we could write.
  Again this year, economic criteria was used to evaluate projects. I 
believe this is an important legacy Chairman Carr is leaving us and one 
which other committees are adopting.
  My fellow subcommittee members have already spoken on many components 
of the bill. Let me comment on one issue about which many members are 
becoming concerned and how we addressed it in the report.
  You may have been contacted by your State's transportation officials 
regarding a problem with the EPA's final rule on Clean Air Act 
conformity standards.
  This is a huge problem for any State which has a nonattainment area, 
and currently there are 32 States with such areas. In a nutshell the 
issue is thus: States were caught unaware when EPA included in its 
final rule a provision on nitrogen oxides emissions which had not been 
previously included in the proposed rule. Neither had NOx been 
raised in discussions with the States during the comment period.

  The resulting problem is this: Until EPA approves a State's 
implementation plan, also referred to as an emissions budget, 
transportation projects are under a build/no-build requirement. If a 
project causes any increase in NOx emissions, regardless how 
minuscule--and in Ohio's case it would be less than one-tenth of 1 
percent--then the project may not be built. And because States were 
unaware that they had to meet NOx requirements, they do not 
believe they have time to complete their amended State implementation 
plans with NOx included.
  The subcommittee had considered including language delaying the 
penalty for States who were unable to comply with the nitrogen oxides 
build/no-build requirement. States still would have needed to comply.
  I believe this would have been a reasonable solution to a problem 
which may result in transportation projects worth billions of dollars 
being postponed.
  EPA and DOT have expressed their desire to address the problem 
administratively. To date, none have been forthcoming. For now, the 
committee has included report language which outlines the problem, 
expresses our concern, and calls for DOT to report to the committee on 
the administrative remedies being provided to States to overcome the 
problem.
  It is my understanding that similar language is being included in the 
VA/HUD appropriations bill as well. This does not solve the problem, 
but it does raise the visibility of the issue and hopefully will lead 
to a fair solution.
  Residents of the Great Lakes Area will be happy to know that the 
Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw will continue in service for 1 more year. 
We also instruct the Coast Guard to study other possible replacements 
for icebreaking on the Great Lakes.

  The committee provided funding for the Coast Guard's Boat Safety 
Program. According to an April 1993 study by the National 
Transportation Safety Board, recreational boating accidents result in 
the highest number of transportation fatalities annually after highway 
accidents. Eliminating this program would not be prudent.
  Funds provided in this bill are investments in our country's 
infrastructure and that has a direct impact on our economic prosperity. 
Whether it is our highways, railways, airways, we can not neglect 
investing in them. The Department of Transportation estimates that 
highway delays in urban areas now total more than 2 billion hours 
annually costing billions of dollars in lost work hours.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Committee bill.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], chairman of the 
Committee on Public Works and transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been 
extended to me by the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4556, the 
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995.
  At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr] for his excellent work on this bill. As you 
may recall, last year the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
and the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations did not agree on 
certain issues in the bill. This year, we are pleased not only with the 
process but the product.
  Unlike last year, this year has been marked with both communication 
and cooperation. The gentleman from Michigan and I worked together in 
the formulation of both the National Highway System and the Department 
of Transportation appropriations bills. Both bills are not only 
compatible, but are a testament to the fact that the authorization and 
the appropriations process do not have to be mutually exclusive.
  And, in terms of substance, under Mr. Carr's leadership, the 
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations managed in this bill to 
fund essential transportation programs at credible levels given the 
limited financial resources available during these tough budget times.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4556 provides $17.2 billion in new obligations 
from the highway trust fund for the Federal-aid highway program to meet 
our Nation's infrastructure needs consistent with the goals of ISTEA. 
This amount, which is only 2 percent less than comparable fiscal year 
1995 funding, provides formula and other grants for the construction 
and repair of the Interstate Highway System and other primary and 
secondary roads and bridges. Included in the $17.2 billion fiscal year 
1995 obligation ceiling is $4.6 billion for the Surface Transportation 
Program--$127 million more than fiscal year 1994 funding; $2.5 billion 
for bridge replacement and rehabilitation--$31 million more than fiscal 
year 1994; and $3.3 billion for the National Highway Program--$42 
million more than current funding.
  The bill also appropriates a total of $300 million for 109 highway 
and other transportation projects specified in other existing law or 
the House-passed National Highway System [NHS] bill. That bill, in 
addition to approving designation of the NHS, also includes general 
fund authorizations for various highway projects which passed muster, 
through a series of 18 questions, with the States, local governments 
and Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation. 
I am proud that in this regard, both the authorizers and the 
appropriators did their part to make the legislative process run more 
smoothly and efficiently.
  Additionally, the bill also appropriates $121 million--of which $47 
million would be provided from the highway trust fund--for much-needed 
operations and research activities of the National Traffic Safety 
Administration. It also authorizes the release of $151 million from the 
highway trust fund for highway traffic safety grants--providing a total 
$273 million for important highway safety programs in fiscal year 1995.
  Moreover, the bill provides $1.7 billion for the discretionary mass 
transit grant program of the Federal Transit Administration, and it 
authorizes the release of $2.9 billion from the mass transit account of 
highway trust fund primarily for formula transit grants, transit 
planning and research and interstate transfer grants--providing a total 
of $4.6 billion for mass transit programs in fiscal year 1995. This 
total is $41 million more than provided in fiscal year 1994.
  Furthermore, the bill provides a total of $25 million for the 
administration's modified high-speed rail proposal. This includes a 
general fund appropriations of $20 million, and the appropriation of up 
to $5 million from the highway trust fund, as authorized by ISTEA for 
research, development, and demonstration of high-speed ground 
transportation technologies, including high-speed rail.
  Unfortunately, as in past years, the bill provides no funding for 
development of a magnetic levitation [maglev] transportation system. 
While ISTEA authorized funds through fiscal year 1997 for development 
of a prototype maglev system, to date, no funding has been provided for 
this worthwhile activity.
  Finally, the bill appropriates $7 billion for the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA] in fiscal year 1995, including up to $1.5 billion 
from the airport and airway trust fund for airport planning and 
development grants--providing a total of $8.5 billion for the FAA in 
fiscal year 1995. Additionally, the bill authorizes the release of up 
to $26 million from the airport and airway trust fund in fiscal year 
1995 for essential air service [EAS] payments to subsidize airline 
service to smaller communities.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. In trying to meet the 
various transportation needs of the entire country, it is responsive 
and responsible. There are, however, three provisions in the bill for 
which I would like to get more clarification. So, at this point, I 
would like to enter a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, section 322 of the bill would provide that any transit 
funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, that remain available for 
expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the most 
recent appropriation heading.
  It is my understanding that this is simply a bookkeeping change 
requested by the administration to allow the transfer of certain 
unexpended funds--around $37 million--from their existing appropriation 
accounts to replacement accounts which more accurately reflect current 
program structures. For example, under this provision $1.8 million in 
the existing research, transit and human resources account would be 
transferred to the new transit, planning and research program account 
created as a result of ISTEA. This would be done, I am told, solely for 
purposes of accounting efficiency.
  Section 322 is not intended to allow the transfer of funds provided 
for one purpose to be used for another. It is also not intended to 
result in any transit program or policy change.
  Is my understanding of this section correct?
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman's understanding is correct. Section 322 would simply allow 
DOT to effectuate technical accounting changes in certain budget 
accounts. It would not go beyond that.
  Mr. MINETA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, section 323 would authorize DOT to permanently cancel 
around $65.1 million in budgetary resources.
  Again, it is my understanding that the resources which may be 
canceled are those involving contractual and/or procurement services 
only. They would not involve cuts or cancellations in the core highway, 
transit, or aviation grant programs; would not involve reductions in 
any of the obligational ceilings for those programs; would not involve 
reductions in any grant program; and would not result in any program or 
policy changes.
  Is that also the understanding of the gentleman?
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Again, the gentleman from California is 
correct.
  Section 323 is included at the request of the administration as a 
result of its reinventing Government exercise. The $65.1 million is 
intended to represent DOT's share of total reductions that would be 
taken Governmentwide in the areas of contractual, procurement and ADP 
services. It is not intended, as the gentleman stated, to effect in any 
way the core highway, transit, or aviation programs.
  Mr. MINETA. I thank the gentleman for his explanation of these two 
provisions.
  Last, the bill also includes a provision that would allow the use of 
70,000-pound, 4-axle dump service vehicles in the State of Maryland, 
notwithstanding the Federal bridge formula weight and axle design 
limitation and notwithstanding the State's current grandfather 
provision of 65,000-pound, 3-axle vehicles.

  One of the concerns I have about this provision--which, I understand, 
would substantially reduce pavement and bridge damage and which would 
enhance safety through better weight distribution--is its enforcement. 
We should not allow this exemption if the State is not going to 
vigorously enforce its application. I think the State of Maryland will 
do so and they have had a strong enforcement record in the past on 
issues like this. On this point, I will include at the end of this 
colloquy letters from both the Maryland Department of Transportation 
State Highway Administration and the Maryland State Police expressing 
commitment to enforce the new limitations.
  To ensure that, however, I wonder if the gentleman from Michigan 
would be amenable to either legislative language or statement of 
managers language when this bill bets to conference, that this section, 
if included in the final conference agreement, shall take effect only 
upon adoption by the State of Maryland of regulations to enforce the 
new limitations; and, second, inclusion of a specific requirement that 
the State of Maryland report to Congress 1 year after enactment of the 
provision of how the State has enforced the new limitations and what 
the enforcement record has been to date.
  It seems to me that both requirements will help ensure proper 
enforcement of the new limitation. It is also my understanding that the 
author of the provision--Congressman Hoyer--is amenable to both of 
these.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. I commend the gentleman from California for his 
concern about proper enforcement of this provision. I know of no 
opposition from the State of Maryland or others to the gentleman's 
request and we will work with him in conference to that end.
  Mr. MINETA. Again, I thank the gentleman, and once again, I would 
like to commend him and the Appropriations Committee for their good 
work on this bill.
         Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway 
           Administration,
                                                    June 13, 1994.
     Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
     Chairman, House Public Works and Transportation Committee, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Mineta: On Friday June 10 inquiries were 
     made as to the status of enforcement regulations and 
     procedures pertaining to the Maryland law which will allow a 
     4-axle dump truck to be operated on Maryland highways. We are 
     currently working on the regulations and enforcement 
     procedures related to this legislation. Please be assured 
     that substantive and effective regulations, including 
     significant fines, will be in place and will be vigorously 
     enforced as of the anticipated December 31, 1994 effective 
     date of this legislation.
       I thank you and your staff for your consideration of this 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Hal Kassoff,
                                                    Administrator.
                                  ____

         State of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and 
           Correctional Services, Maryland State Police,
                                    Pikesville, MD, June 10, 1994.
     Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
     Chairman, House Public Works and Transportation Committee, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Mineta: On Friday, June 10, 1994, 
     inquiries were made about the status of enforcement 
     regulations pertaining to the Maryland law which will allow a 
     four axle dump truck to be operated on Maryland highways.
       Please be assured that the Maryland State Police, as a 
     principal component of the Motor Carrier Safety Program, will 
     enforce the regulations and procedures, effective December 
     31, 1994.
       Thank you for your interest in this most important issue, 
     and I look forward to working with you in the future on 
     matters of mutual concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                    L.W. Tolliver,
                                                   Superintendent.

                              {time}  1250

  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. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as we take up the Transportation 
appropriations bill, I would like to express my gratitude to 
subcommittee Chairman Carr and ranking member Wolf for their leadership 
on this important legislation. Their efforts to institute a strict 
level of criteria to fund transportation projects signals their 
commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  I will certainly miss working with Bob Carr in the House. He has 
always been most cooperative and helpful, and the residents of southern 
California are indebted to him for his attention to their 
transportation requirements.
  This year budgetary constraints prompted a strict scrutiny of each of 
these projects through both the authorizing and appropriations 
processes. I am extremely pleased that my colleagues shared my view 
that these projects deserved funding during this tight fiscal year.
  I especially appreciate the consideration of southern California's 
transportation needs with the inclusion of funding for the eastern 
transportation corridor project. Chairman Carr was instrumental in 
adding this important funding. In effect, the money set aside for this 
project amounts to a line of credit which is not expected to be spent. 
Instead, it will help to leverage more than $1.6 billion of much needed 
highway construction in Orange County. Bob Carr and Frank Wolf were 
extremely supportive of my efforts to include this funding.
  Similarly, the addition of financing for the Orange County transitway 
project will allow for preliminary engineering, right-of-way 
acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction for new 
systems and extensions.
  The committee must also be commended for incorporating funding for 
the Bristol Street improvement project in Santa Ana, the California 
Interstate 905 congestion mitigation project, the Interstate 5 capacity 
enhancement, and the State Route 71 planning and design project in 
Riverside, CA.
  The inclusion of these and other important programs in San Diego, 
Orange, and Riverside Counties will help the region meet its 
challenging transportation needs. I believe that this legislation takes 
a new approach to highway and transit projects and reorients the 
direction of this Nation's transportation policy.
  Congestion on southern California roadways has been a bane to the 
continued growth of this area. This legislation will be a first step 
toward alleviating the traffic congestion that southern California 
motorists face everyday.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank members and staff 
of the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee on Transportation for 
their hard work on this bill. Your hard work paves the way for meeting 
our Nations transportation needs.
  I support this very important transportation funding bill and urge my 
colleagues to support it also.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Michigan 
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished chairman of 
the Aviation Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on 
Aviation indicated that major changes are needed in the management of 
the FAA's advanced automation system program if it is going to be 
successful. In fact, Administrator Henson has already taken steps to 
bring about necessary changes, and I give him credit for doing so.
  Our hearings generated considerable discussion about self of off-the-
shelf technology to a greater extent than has been done to date to 
complete aspects of this program, especially in the tower and terminal 
environments. Those hearings also indicated that U.S. companies are not 
producing advanced automation air traffic control technology and 
selling it to other countries overseas. These hearings showed that if 
FAA took the right steps in the procurement process, this type of 
equipment can be brought on line at home quicker and at less cost than 
they have done up to now.
  FAA has a good deal of authority to cut through the bureaucratic red 
tape in the procurement process, and have shown they can do this in the 
recent wide area augmentation system procurement under the global 
positioning satellite system.

                              {time}  1300

  FAA in that process, will be taking a number of actions to reduce the 
procurement cycle by more than half the time up until now. For 
instance, to get the necessary approval to move requests for proposals 
stages have been cut from 15 or 18 months to 5 months. Time for moving 
from RFP approval to contract award will be cut from 2 years to 9 
months. Time for contract award to implementation will be cut from the 
average normal 5 years to 2\1/2\ years.
  I think the FAA ought to be taking similar steps in the advanced 
automation system procurement, especially in the terminal and tower 
aspects of the program. Those who aspects, especially, lend themselves 
to an expedited process, because we have learned that the technology is 
already available for these systems. It is developed and available, and 
the FAA can eliminate the time-consuming and complicated steps in the 
procurement process to bring those systems on line sooner.
  I know the gentleman from Michigan has taken a great deal of 
subcommittee time to look into this aspect of the procurement process. 
I appreciate the initiatives of the gentleman. I hope that he will 
concur in that viewpoint.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we concur.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express concern over the 
effect the House Transportation appropriation bill will have on the 
Coast Guard. I have, on many occasions expressed to this body my 
support and appreciation of the U.S. Coast Guard. Quite possibly, the 
Coast Guard is one of the least recognized and most misunderstood 
branches of our national defense. In fact, because the Coast Guard is 
normally under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation instead 
of the Secretary of Defense, it is not always thought of as being an 
integral part of our national defense.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure you as a Congressman whose district 
borders the Gulf of Mexico, I view the Coast Guard a little like having 
a life insurance policy on a loved one. You hope you never need it but 
you are mighty glad you do when the time comes. In addition to search 
and rescue missions and the deployment of buoys, America's Coast Guard 
is also at the forefront of providing expertise on the containment of 
oil, chemical and hazardous waste spills in a 36-State area. 
Additionally, America's Coast Guard is on the front lines of our war 
against drugs and I am especially proud that the men and women who make 
up our Coast Guard in south Alabama have the distinction of recording 
the largest single confiscation of cocaine on the high seas.
  In this day and age of belt tightening and cutting back, some might 
question if the American people are getting their money's worth from 
groups like the Coast Guard. Let me assure you the answer to that 
question is a resounding ``yes.''
  The reduction of more than $50 million from the President's request 
for Coast Guard operations will have an immense impact considering the 
significant reductions made in fiscal year 1994. These reductions are 
coming at a time when we are asking this small service to take on more 
and more responsibility. We may be endangering the ability of the Coast 
Guard to deliver the wide variety of services we have grown to expect.
  Soldiers, patriots, rescuers, navigators--the Coast Guard is made up 
of the finest America has to offer and I, for one, am proud of all of 
these men and women who serve their country.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of this DOT appropriations bill 
and wish to commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], and the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for the marvelous job they have done in 
fashioning this legislation.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, the 
authorizing panel for the highway and transit issues, I wish to say and 
tell my colleagues that this is an excellent example of how the House 
should operate.
  We have reached an agreement. We are in a cooperative spirit here, as 
we seek to handle these highway and transit projects. We entered into 
an agreement, and we have kept full faith with that agreement between 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from Virginia, as well as the distinguished full 
committee chairman of our authorizing committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] and our ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Every single highway project in this bill has been reviewed by the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. They have been subjected 
to our intensive review and to the criteria that have been set forth by 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] as well.
  All of that bodes well for this body, because we all have assurances 
that these are very high-priority projects, high quality, fully 
deserving of the extra funding that is being proposed and do have the 
support of State Highway Departments of Transportation as well.
  But Mr. Chairman, that is a relatively small part of the importance 
of this bill. This is a critical measure in terms of the overall 
contribution to the surface transportation infrastructure of this 
Nation. As we look into the next century and how we will direct 
transportation policy as policymakers, it is important that we look at 
the overall picture.
  The spirit in which we have entered into support for this 
appropriation bill today is the spirit of cooperation and agreement. I 
hope that we can continue that type of spirit as we look at other 
transportation decisions that are so vital for our country.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and the 
excellent work that he has put into this legislation and urge its 
support.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 4556. I would like to direct commendations to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations and my good neighbor 
in the Rayburn House Office Building, and the distinguished gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the ranking member, for their exceptional 
work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I would say, about the gentleman from Michigan, his tenure has been 
short. But I think that the innovations he has brought in planning and 
project justification have been good for the Congress and good for the 
taxpayer, and I would hope that those efforts would be continued.
  This Member is very grateful for the support that these two gentlemen 
and all members of the committee have shown to Nebraska over the years 
and also for their overall effort to improve the country's 
infrastructure and, finally, for their special assistance directly and 
through their staff to this Member.
  Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill strikes an appropriate balance 
between Federal deficit concerns and the transportation infrastructure 
needs of the United States. The bill also reflects an emphasis on the 
overall needs of the Nation as well as addressing local and regional 
transportation issues and projects.
  Specifically, this Member would like to express his appreciation for 
the committee's and subcommittee's continued support for the proposed 
bridge between the Newcastle, NE, area and Vermillion, SD. For six 
decades, the prospect of constructing a bridge in the Newcastle-
Vermillion area has enjoyed wide-spread support. An impressive 
coalition of community organizations, local governments, businesses, 
and individuals from both Nebraska and South Dakota has joined together 
in support of this bridge.
  Such a bistate consensus is possible because the benefits resulting 
from the bridge's construction are so clear to all. These benefits 
include increased economic development, enhanced recreational 
opportunities, improved access to health care, and a reduction in 
transportation costs. Also, the construction of this bridge will 
improve the general quality of life for the area's residents by 
creating additional opportunities for higher education and cultural and 
social activities.
  Due to the current lack of a bridge in this region, communities in 
northeast Nebraska and southeast South Dakota--including Vermillion, 
the location of the University of South Dakota--have remained isolated 
from each other despite their proximity. As a result, economic activity 
in the region has been hampered and labor and commerce options have 
been limited. Clearly, the completion of this bridge across the 
Missouri River will be a significant aid in attracting new businesses 
to the area.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member is convinced that this bridge, when 
completed, will serve as a connector for one of two major north-south 
routes across Nebraska. In addition, to act as a connector it will 
first require a new highway connection between Wayne, NE, and the 
bridge; and second, it will require an upgrading of the highway between 
Wayne and Norfolk, NE, to connect to U.S. 81 which is currently being 
upgraded. This will mean that from the Kansas border, near Chester, NE, 
there will be a direct link across Nebraska to Vermillion, SD, and I-29 
to points north, northeast, and northwest.

  This Member would also like to thank the committee and subcommittee 
for continuing to recognize the need for a bridge between Niobrara, NE, 
and Springfield, SD. Initial authorization for such a bridge is 
contained in a provision of Public Law 100-17, the Surface 
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987. An 
authorization of $4.7 million was also included in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. However, this amount was 
less than originally requested and less than necessary to complete the 
project.
  Because of redistricting, the Nebraska portion of this project is now 
in the district of the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett]. However, due to this Member's previous efforts and the 
tremendous need for this bridge, this Member remains very supportive of 
this project.
  The proposed Niobrara-Springfield bridge has enjoyed widespread 
support from residents on both sides of the river as well as local and 
State officials. Since 1927, efforts have been made to construct this 
much-needed bridge. The issue became even more critical in the mid-
1980's with the abandonment of ferry service. As a result of a previous 
legislative initiative, the Department of Transportation directed the 
Nebraska Department of Roads and the South Dakota Department of 
Transportation to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
reinstituting ferry service. The report, which was completed in 
December 1987, estimated that the car ferry would cost approximately $5 
million to $6 million. Because of the Department of Roads' 
analysis that a bridge could be built for far less than was previously 
discussed, the bridge option became more attractive.

  Motorists, farmers, and business- people would benefit greatly from 
the reduced travel distance if this bridge is built. Also, because of 
the beneficial impact this bridge would have on the Indian tribes in 
the area, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has expressed its support for 
the project. For example, by reducing the driving time from the Santee 
Sioux reservation to the Indian Health Service facility that has 
operated in Wagner, SD, the bridge would play an important role in 
improving medical care for the tribes served by the facility.
  This Member would also like to thank his distinguished colleague from 
South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] for his outstanding efforts and cooperation 
with this Member on behalf of the two interstate bridge projects which 
will connect our States. The completion of these bridges will play an 
important role in facilitating a mutually positive interdependence 
between communities in Nebraska and South Dakota. Mr. Johnson deserves 
recognition for the important role he has played in bringing this goal 
closer to reality. It has been a pleasure to continue the close and 
good cooperation on these and other bi-State projects and issues.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4556 addresses the current and future highway 
needs of the United States and this Member urges his colleagues to 
support the bill.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and chairman of the authorization 
subcommittee that deals with Amtrak. The gentleman has been a valuable 
partner in the deliberations and in the consideration of this bill.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman very much for 
the time and also for the cooperation that he has extended to my 
subcommittee as we work on these difficult issues.
  Mr. Chairman, later on today we are going to get a chance to debate 
fully some of the issues with regard to Amtrak, ICC, and some of those 
issues.
  I would like to take this time to just make kind of a general 
observation that applies to this appropriation bill and to all the 
appropriations bills that come before the House, Mr. Chairman. It seems 
that there is no way, we have not found a way, to get credit for 
supporting spending cuts unless we vote for an amendment on the floor.
  The fact is that most of the cutting that has taken place in this 
institution has taken place within the Committee on Appropriations, 
very, very tough decisions. I have to tell the Members, there is not 
enough money in this bill in a number of areas of concern to me, if I 
measure it against what I would like there to be in order to do the 
job. They have bitten bullets until their teeth are dull.
  However, Mr. Chairman, when it gets out here, somehow we have not 
been able to figure out how we can vote to support the committee and 
get credit for supporting very tight, penurious budgets and get credit 
for voting for spending cuts. I wish we could find a way to do that, 
because this in an institution, Mr. Chairman, that is really a creature 
of its committees.
  It has been set up that way since the beginning. It was Woodrow 
Wilson, long before he became a politician, when he was a political 
scientist, who said the House in session is the House on display; the 
House in committee is the House at work.
  Mr. Chairman, the committees have the ability to be much more 
surgical in the way they make the cuts, to take into consideration a 
lot of subtleties that are really impossible to deal with on the floor, 
and to coordinate the cuts between the other activities over which that 
appropriation bill has sway. In short, we may be spending less than 
some of us would like, but generally speaking, what comes out of the 
committee is the most rational and capable way of doing that.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that we have so 
many amendments which are really kind of a meataxe approach to cutting, 
because I think a lot of Members feel they have to have the opportunity 
in order to demonstrate that they are being thrifty.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that one can be very, very thrifty 
indeed by supporting the Committee on Appropriations on this 
appropriation, and frankly, on all of the appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], a capable member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I want to say I thank 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] for his remarks, because he 
is absolutely right. There are a lot of organizations around here that 
rate our votes, and some of us that do not vote for increased spending 
have voted for appropriation bills, for instance, the foreign ops bill, 
the milcon bill, and there was one more I am trying to remember, energy 
and water, that was below last year's spending. We will be rated as big 
spenders for voting for bills that are below last year's spending, 
actual, real, no-foolishness cuts. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman 
from Washington is right on point.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that I support that literally keeps 
America moving. I am very proud to be part of this subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend the chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr], in his last year as chairman, for his 
diligent efforts on behalf of this Nation's transportation needs. It 
has been a real pleasure serving on the committee with Mr. Carr, even 
before he was chairman. The gentleman from Michigan is a dear friend of 
mine, and I value his evaluation and his friendship over these years, 
and I have to say if he does move to the lower body on the other side 
of the rotunda, it is their gain, and it is our loss.

  I respect the chairman greatly because of what he has tried to do in 
a very powerful position to bring some sanity to what had gotten way 
out of hand with projects and earmarks, and projects that had no 
justification for being implemented or being passed. In his short 
tenure as chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
has instituted many crucial and necessary changes to the committee, and 
I again applaud his efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the ranking member, who is also a very 
diligent member of this committee and has taken every issue and every 
project in this bill very seriously, and has made some tough decisions 
along with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr].
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that this committee has gone to great 
lengths to address transportation programs in a fair and responsible 
manner, great lengths, requiring each project to have criteria to 
justify its existence. However, I would say that this is just a good 
bill, not a great bill.
  There are some provisions in this bill that are timely, many 
provisions that are timely and necessary in support of our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure; but there are certain few others that 
have limited justification and have been inserted into this bill for no 
other reason than political reasons, inserted in this bill after the 
subcommittee marked up the bill, after the subcommittee listened to 
long, extensive hours of testimony during hearings for months, and in 
between the time we marked up the bill and the bill found its way to 
the full committee's mark-up, a lot of extra projects were added to the 
bill, through no fault of the chairman of this subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is a shame that this chairman was 
treated the way that he was treated.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the effort, the good parts of this bill, 
I would like to just take a brief moment and talk about Houston Metro. 
The committee has shown continued support for Houston's regional bus 
plan. This plan without question serves as a model for transit programs 
throughout the Nation.
  Houston has the most technologically advanced risk factor management 
programs, IVHS programs, enhanced street maintenance programs, 
neighborhood infrastructure systems, and street and sidewalk 
improvements than any other city in America. They also have the lowest 
cost per new rider index out of all the projects funded by the Federal 
Transit Administration. I am very proud of the accomplishments of 
Metro, and particularly Mayor Lanier of Houston, and I want to commend 
their efforts.
  As we can tell from that list of transportation programs, Houston 
addresses its transportation problems in a very comprehensive manner. 
All the projects are designed to support its core bus system and 
improve vehicular and pedestrian mobility. Houston does not look at one 
problem area and try to fix it with a band-aid. They take a very 
comprehensive look at mobility problems.
  It is this kind of philosophy that has enabled Houston to provide the 
best service at the lowest cost, and I again want to give praise for 
their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] 
that he has done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. I 
commend his work, and say from all of us, particularly all of us on 
this side of the aisle, we really appreciate his service to this body.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter] for a colloquy.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me the time.
  As the gentleman from Virginia is aware, I have been working with the 
county of Imperial and the California Department of Transportation to 
secure funding for an important transportation project in my district, 
the extension of California 98 to Interstate 8, which was authorized 
for $2 million in H.R. 4385, the National Highway System Designation 
Act of 1994, and will augment the commercial port of entry currently 
under construction in Calexico, CA, at the California-Mexico border.
  Mr. Chairman, the port will be about 6 miles away from the existing 
port of entry and accommodate an increasing flow of commercial traffic 
into the Imperial Valley. For this reason, the California Department of 
Transportation committed funds to construct the initial leg of the 
project, and amended their State Transportation Improvement Program to 
agree with the enacted NHS authorization bill.
  Understanding the difficult decisions that were made by your 
committee this year, I am hopeful that some funding can be made 
available for the preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of 
the State Route 7 project.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks, and 
I agree that the project deserves recognition. The road improvements 
will play an important role in the success of the port of entry, it 
will create an invaluable economic and commercial corridor along our 
border with Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman that if they are able to get this 
in in the Senate side, I will do everything I can to see that the bill 
stays in the conference report.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I commend the 
gentleman and his staff for everything they have done to accommodate 
this critical project.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill, with 
certain small reservations.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise today to commend the gentleman from Michigan, 
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Carr, for the fine job that he has done 
in developing this bill. Given the tight discretionary spending cap 
that the Transportation Subcommittee had to work with, this bill 
generally provides the Coast Guard and other Department of 
Transportation agencies with adequate funds for continued operations in 
fiscal year 1995.
  However, the funding levels for two Coast Guard accounts do concern 
me. First, the appropriation for the Coast Guard's operating expenses 
[OE] account is $50,000,000 below the President's already austere 
request. This portion of the Coast Guard's budget funds its diverse 
day-to-day operations, including search and rescue, law enforcement, 
migrant interdiction, and pollution response and therefore suffers the 
most immediate and severe consequences when funding falls short.
  In addition, since the administration's budget was submitted to 
Congress, the President has revised our Haitian interdiction policy to 
include at-sea asylum processing of refugees. This new policy will 
surely increase the cost of the Coat Guard's migrant interdiction 
program. I am concerned that these increased costs, when coupled with 
the lean budget submitted to Congress--a budget which this bill does 
not fully fund--may endanger the Coast Guard's ability to deliver the 
essential services that the Nation requires and has grown to expect.
  Second, the $25,000,000 appropriation for the State recreational 
boating safety grant program, while $25,000,000 more than the 
administration's request, is $7,250,000 less than the total amount 
available for the grant program in fiscal year 1994--a reduction of 18 
percent. Since its establishment in the 1970's, this program has 
provided critical funding for State recreational boating safety 
programs, programs that are responsible for a five-fold drop in boating 
fatalities; from 20 per 100,000 boats in 1971 to 4 per 100,000 in 1992. 
Accident prevention is assuredly more cost-effective--and decidedly 
more humane--than search and rescue and I firmly believe that this 
program should be fully funded.
  Let me be very clear that I do not raise these concerns to criticize 
Chairman Carr or his subcommittee. I believe they have done an 
admirable job under very difficult circumstances. However, I understand 
that the discretionary spending cap for the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee is somewhat higher than the House cap. If 
this is the case, I encourage Chairman Carr to address these areas of 
concern in Conference with the Senate.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, in the early morning hours of August 10, 
1993, a collision occurred in a navigation channel outside the entrance 
to Tampa Bay between two tug/barges and a 357-foot freighter. This 
accident resulted in a thunderous explosion which shot a fireball 
hundreds of feet into the air. In addition, approximately 380,000 
gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The cost of the cleanup 
of this spill will be enormous--several million dollars, at least.
  However, this is not the first accident to occur at the mouth of 
Tampa Bay. Most of you will remember the disaster that occurred in May 
1980, when a freighter ran into the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, causing one 
of its spans to collapse and killing at least 40 people.
  In fact, the Tamp Bay area has been listed by the Coast Guard as a 
danger area for cargo ships carrying hazardous materials. In 1991, the 
U.S. Coast Guard conducted a ``port needs study'' on 23 ports across 
the United States. The goal of this study was to recognize the ports 
that are most prone to accidents. The study ranked Tampa Bay as one of 
the top 10 most dangerous ports.
  The Coast Guard has developed a system designed to prevent these 
types of accidents. This system--the vessel traffic service or VTS--has 
been successfully implemented by the Coast Guard in four major port 
areas.
  VTS functions like an air traffic control system. It tracks vessels 
by radar and assists them in navigating through hazardous areas.
  Unfortunately, however, in the appropriation bill that we considered 
today, the Coast Guard's vessel traffic service has been pushed back 
another year. The bill we have before us will not result in deployment 
of VTS in Tampa Bay--or any other port--before the end of the 1995 
fiscal year at earliest.
  I have supported VTS as a cost-effective program that will save 
taxpayer money. Nationally, the cost to clean up these types of 
accidents far exceeds the funding requested by the Department of 
Transportation to operate the VTS program.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that I will be able to work closely with 
the chairmen of both the Transportation Appropriations Committee an the 
Public Works and Transportation Committee--as well as all of my House 
colleagues--in the future in order to secure the necessary funding for 
this vitally important program.
  I express this hope not only in memory of the lives that have been 
lost in accidents such as those that I have described, but for the sake 
of the lives we will save through the VTS program.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend members of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for their excellent work 
in passing the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill of 1995.
  I especially wish to thank Chairman Carr for the inclusion of $1 
million for the Tower City Intermodal Hub Study. The proposed 
intermodal hub would integrate Cleveland's existing bus, rapid transit, 
and intercity rail services, as well as future commuter rail and high-
speed rail services. Significant opportunities for transit linkages 
within the Cleveland-Akron-Columbus-Cincinnati corridor as well as 
points west to Toledo-Detroit and east through my district to Buffalo 
would be created.
  This funding will provide the development of a preliminary 
engineering study of three potential sites to assist in the critical 
decision of site selection. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit 
Authority would be the recipient of the funding, and is presently 
committed to provide local matching funds.
  I would like to thank the committee once again for the attention they 
have given this important request.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4556, the 
fiscal year 1995 Transportation Appropriations Act, and in opposition 
to those amendments which would undermine the efforts of this Congress 
to develop and maintain our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  In particular, I want to commend Chairman Carr, the other members of 
the subcommittee, and its staff for directing Amtrak to utilize $10 
million to address the freight rail capacity problems caused by 
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor electrification program in my State of 
Rhode Island beyond the level Amtrak already plans.
  I support Amtrak's efforts to electrify the Northeast Corridor and 
cut travel time between New York City and Boston to under 3 hours, and 
I am glad that the subcommittee continues to fund this initiative.
  However, over time, I have become increasingly concerned that Rhode 
Island's existing freight rail system and the State's plan to introduce 
commuter rail service will be damaged by Amtrak's current 
electrification design. Moreover, the State's efforts to modernize its 
freight rail system and develop the former Navy base at Davisville, RI, 
will be unduly hampered by the current electrification plan. 
Unfortunately, without the subcommittee's action, the combined negative 
impacts of the existing electrification program threatened my State's 
future economic viability.
  Simply stated, Amtrak's electrification current design does not 
permit adequate access or sufficient vertical clearance for current or 
expanded levels of freight service.
  Amtrak's electrification program requires the modification of almost 
50 bridges in Rhode Island. Unfortunately, Amtrak's current 
modification plan calls for bridge clearances of 16 feet, 8 inches. Not 
only could this plan compromise existing freight operations, it would 
preclude the planned introduction of modern double and triple stack 
carriers from the Port of Davisville since these carriers require 
clearances of 19 feet, 7 inches. Without a comprehensive bridge 
clearance improvement project, the long-term economic development of 
Southeastern New England will be seriously impacted.
  Beyond the need for higher bridge clearances, Amtrak's plan to 
increase the amount of passenger train traffic through electrification 
will severely limit the access of freight trains to the Northeast 
Corridor. Indeed, the schedule modeling of proposed freight rail 
operations indicate that Rhode Island freight will only be allowed to 
move from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. in the morning--a schedule that business 
cannot and should not have to operate under. In addition, as we know 
from recent, tragic railroad accidents, there is a need to rapidly 
increase rail safety. One of the best ways to increase safety is to run 
freight and passenger traffic on separate lines.
  The solution to this problem is to rehabilitate and construct a third 
track dedicated to preserving and expanding freight service in Rhode 
Island.
  Moreover, the State of Rhode Island and its freight carrier are 
committed to funding 50 percent of this project--a level of support 
that is far beyond the standard State contribution.
  While some of my colleagues may rise today in opposition to this bill 
claiming it is not in the Nation's interest, I believe they miss the 
point. The bill before us is about improving the efficiency of our 
Nation's transportation system, and more importantly in economically 
struggling areas, it is about jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support for Rhode Island's 
efforts to protect its freight and commuter rail plans, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote for H.R. 4556.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the provision in the 
bill, H.R. 4556, that permits the State of Maryland to amend the terms 
of its truck weight limitations. The provision approves the application 
of the laws and regulations in effect in the State of Maryland on June 
1, 1993 as it relates to certain truck weight and axle limitations.
  Mr. Chairman, as many Members of this body may recall with the 
enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 [ISTEA], the Congress froze the existing State and Federal limits 
on truck sizes and weights for use on the Interstate system. To the 
extent that certain States were determined to have truck size and 
weight limits that could exceed the Federal limits, ISTEA permitted the 
continuing use of the grandfathered vehicles. Unfortunately, any 
attempt by States to amend the State truck size and weight limits to 
come closer toward compliance with the Federal limits were precluded 
under the truck size and weight limits agreed to in ISTEA.
  In the State of Maryland, there is a grandfather provision which 
allows short three-axle dump trucks to operate at up to 65,000 pounds. 
The Maryland three-axle 65,000 pound grandfathered vehicle is one of 
the worst in the country. But it is allowed by existing Federal law and 
will go on being allowed by Federal law if we do not act.
  However, with the need to address the impact of heavy truck travel on 
roadways within the State of Maryland, the Maryland State Legislature 
has enacted a law phasing out the 65,000 pound three-axle service 
vehicles and replacing the vehicles with a 70,000-pound four-axle 
configuration. The requirement to switch to a four-axle truck would 
significantly reduce the loading per axle, would significantly reduce 
wear and tear on the Interstate System, and would reduce braking 
distances and therefore improve safety. The four-axle requirement 
basically takes the same payload and spreads it over more axles, 
wheels, and bearing area. The result is less damage to the Interstates 
and better safety performance. That is what this provision would have 
us agree to.
  Although the new vehicle would not conform to the Federal bridge 
formula which limits axle weights, spacing, and gross vehicle weights, 
the use of the newly designed vehicle would be a significant 
improvement over the existing vehicle. This is a major attempt by the 
State of Maryland to conform with the Federal truck size and weight 
limitations. The savings projected to accrue from reduced pavement 
damage are in the range of $20 million per year. This provision takes a 
bad situation and makes it better.
  In order for the State of Maryland to benefit from the pavement 
repair savings of $20 million per year, the use of the newly designed 
vehicle must be approved by the Congress. If we do not enact this 
provision, the new State law in Maryland automatically self-destructs 
and the three-axle trucks get to go on doing more damage and having 
longer braking distances, and in fact new trucks can be added to the 
Maryland fleet which operate at three-axles and 65,000 pounds.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provisions of section 
332 of this legislation that would provide for the use of the four-axle 
service vehicle in the State of Maryland.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
adoption of H.R. 4556, the ``Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1995.'' While I realize funding is very 
tight and we all must tighten our belts, this legislation absolutely 
neglects the State of New Jersey. I am sure my colleagues are aware, 
New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and its 
transportation infrastructure is perpetually stretched to the limit. 
Moreover, Federal clean air mandates will be placing an even greater 
burden on New Jersey's transportation infrastructure over the next few 
months.
  Even as I speak, northern New Jersey motorists are struggling in the 
searing summer heat to pass through the Route 17/Route 4 interchange is 
a major east/west to north/south link in northern New Jersey and its 
improvement is vital for commuters and commerce. Yet, despite the U.S. 
House of Representatives' approval of a $3 million general fund 
authorization for the Route 17/Route 4 interchange as part of H.R. 
4385, the National Highway System Desigation Act of 1994, the House 
Appropriations Committee has completely overlooked this project's 
desperate need for funding in fiscal year 1995.
  The interchange lies at the heart of the Borough of Paramus and 
Bergen County's commercial hub, and it is a critical crossroad for all 
of northern New Jersey. Fortunately, local officials have worked 
closely with the New Jersey Department of Transportation to formulate 
and approve a new interchange design.
  The existing interchange was built in 1932 and designed to 
accommodate an estimated volume of 12,000 vehicles per day. Clearly, 
with the present estimated daily volume of 250,000 vehicles, the 
interchange is no longer suitable, and in dire need of improvement. Not 
only is the interchange one of the busiest intersections in New Jersey, 
it is also one of the most dangerous--averaging one motor vehicle 
accident per day.
  At an estimated total cost of $90 million, completion of the Route 
17/Route 4 interchange project is heavily dependent upon Federal 
funding. Full funding for the interchange should not be a problem since 
both Route 17 and Route 4 have been designated by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation as components of the urbanized area portion of the 
NHS, in accordance with applicable provisions outlined in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA].
  The desperate need for Federal funding of the interchange project has 
accelerated due to a land dispute brought about by the specifications 
of the New Jersey Department of Transportation approved design. The 
owner of the Alexander's department store property has threatened to 
raze the existing retail structure and construct three new retail 
facilities unless a minimum of $8 million in Federal funds can be made 
available to purchase the property, in fiscal year 1995. Should this 
property be re-developed, the entire project will have to be placed on-
hold while less-vehicle-efficient redesign is formulated.
  The State of New Jersey stands ready to provide the required matching 
funding necessary to bring the Route 17/Route 4 interchange problems to 
a successful resolution. While the authorized amount represents a 
beginning in the funding process for construction of the Route 17/Route 
4 interchange, the Appropriations Committee's unwillingness to fund 
this project has placed its timely completion in danger.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not acceptable to 
the State of New Jersey. I would hope in the future the Committee will 
look more favorably upon New Jersey's transportation needs, including 
the Route 17/Route 4 interchange, the Interstate 280 connector in 
Newark, and full funding for the State's urban core project.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit 
the bill and to vote against final adoption of H.R. 4556.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4556, 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies. I want to pay special thanks to Chairman Carr and 
all the members of the subcommittee for their hard work and expeditious 
action on this important legislation. Given the freeze in domestic 
discretionary funding enacted as part of the deficit reduction plan, I 
know the subcommittee faced a number of difficult problems this year.
  When I was elected to Congress in 1992, I promised all citizens in my 
community that one of my top priorities would be to ensure that 
Westside Light Rail project--from downtown Portland to downtown 
Hillsboro--became a reality. Last year, I had the pleasure of working 
with the subcommittee and to secure a funding level to keep Westside 
Light Rail on schedule. In fact, here in the House, I was able to 
secure the highest funding level ever for the project. I am pleased to 
let my constituents know that the bill before us today hits a new high 
water mark. It contains the highest level ever proposed in the House 
for the Westside Light Rail project: $73.5 million. I find it 
gratifying that these funds will help ensure that the hard work of so 
many of our local people will not go to waste, and the project will 
stay on track for an additional year. Today's bill is living proof that 
hard work truly does pay off.
  Earlier this year, I testified with Tom Walsh, general manager of 
Tri-Met, before Mr. Carr's subcommittee regarding this project. At that 
time, we were able to give the entire subcommittee a tremendous amount 
of good news about Westside Light Rail. The Westside Light Rail project 
was officially dedicated last August and construction began on the 
tunnel segment this past winter. Thirty-seven fully accessible low-
floor cars are currently on order. Construction on the other line 
segments will begin in the coming months. The Hillsboro project's 
environmental impact statement [EIS] was recently completed and the 
region expected to complete negotiations or an amendment to the full 
funding grant agreement this summer. In fact, throughout my district, 
there is ample evidence of progress on the Westside Light Rail project.
  Currently the first of the two legs of the Westside project is 
scheduled to open in the fall of 1997. Frankly, it can't become 
operational soon enough. The project is largely located in Washington 
County, the fastest growing county in the entire State. Washington 
County and all surrounding areas are facing increasing gridlock as the 
current transportation infrastructure is incapable of accommodating the 
exploding traffic demand. The west hills of Portland are formidable 
obstacles to future road expansion. Light rail will make expanded 
future travel between downtown and the western suburbs possible. 
Westside Light Rail is, without question, the most important project in 
my district.
  Public support for Westside--even with all the temporary disruptions 
that construction of this project has created in my community--remains 
high. Public support remains consistently high because people in 
Portland understand that Westside is key to our region's future. The 
vision of liveable communities with less traffic and vibrant commerce 
depends in no small part on regional and State land use decisions. In 
Oregon, all these decisions emphasize corridor and zoning planning and 
are predicated on the completion of the Westside project. Transit and 
road networks will work hand-in-hand to continue what we believe is an 
unparalleled quality of life.

  The Portland area's commitment to Westside light rail is best 
represented by the general obligation bond measure which was passed in 
November 1990 by 74 percent of the vote. Citizens were willing to put 
their own money where their mouth was to provide the local match for 
the Westside project. The State legislature has approved the use of 
lottery fund moneys for the State's share of the entire project. In 
fact, for the Hillsoboro segment, the State and local governments will 
overmatch the section 3 funds to reduce the Federal share to 33 
percent. That's another signal of the community's commitment to light 
rail.
  Secretary Pena was quoted earlier this year as saying that Portland 
has ``the best transit system in the country.'' He's right. The Clinton 
administration has been very supportive of the Westside light rail 
project, both in terms of its recommendations in the Federal Transit 
Administration's 3-J report, but also in the award of discretionary 
funds to keep the project on line. Having personally contacted the 
President about Westside light rail, I'm appreciative of their support.
  There are a number of people I need to thank here in the House, in 
addition to Chairman Carr, for their efforts on Westside light rail. 
Special thanks are due to Senator Hatfield for his long-term commitment 
to Westside, and his work on the Senate side. He is a good friend. The 
dean of the Oregon delegation, Ron Wyden, has once again been extremely 
helpful in advancing this project. I thank him for all he has done. In 
fact, every time I have asked a member of the Oregon delegation to 
support the Westside project--and it has been a number of times--they 
have done so.
  I'd like to mention one additional aspect of this legislation, 
something which has gone largely unnoticed. H.R. 4556 includes the 
first real funding for highspeed rail. In the Northwest, we have one of 
five nationally designated highspeed rail corridors--from Vancouver, 
B.C., to Eugene, OR--and it goes right through my district. The $25 
million provided by the committee will be a significant boost to the 
$50 million which Oregon and Washington have already committed to this 
project. I believe it will be a very cost-effective investment.
  Additionally, I'd like to point out that one of the very real needs 
in the Northwest is to be given the authority to actually begin work on 
corridor, as opposed to simply doing more planning. The bill before us 
today is a good step in this direction. We in Oregon have a plan, we 
have local funds, and we are ready to go. It we receive funds in fiscal 
year 1995, we will be even closer to making highspeed rail a reality in 
our region.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 
4385. I have been fortunate during this Congress to be involved with so 
many good people on the Westside Light Rail project at virtually every 
level: local, regional, State groups, and Tri-Met itself. I am proud of 
the work I have done to advance Westside, and urge support of H.R. 
4385. It is a good bill, important legislation for Oregon and the 
Nation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4556. On 
behalf of the men and women who's service in the Coast Guard means so 
much to Americans everywhere, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Carr, for the cooperation that 
he has demonstrated in working with the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 
Navigation to address a number of concerns that we brought to his 
attention.
  In a very difficult budget year, Chairman Carr has ensured that the 
Coast Guard's capital improvements account is adequately funded. This 
investment in new ships, boats, and shore facilities will bring returns 
for years to come. Additionally, H.R. 4556 provides funding for two 
programs that are very important to my subcommittee; reserve training 
and boating safety.
  Like every other agency in the Department of Transportation, the 
Coast Guard had orders to reduce its budget request for fiscal year 
1995. Due to very tight budget allocations in the House, H.R. 4556 
recommends cutting an additional $50 million below the President's 
request for the Coast Guard's operating account.
  In 1995 the Coast Guard already plans to decommission 11 cutters; 
ground 11 aircraft; and consolidate numerous administrative offices 
across the country.
  What's more, the Coast Guard has once again been forced to reduce its 
drug interdiction operations because of the crisis in Haiti. We must 
give the Coast Guard the funding it needs to carry out the missions 
that we have assigned to it.
  While I understand that there were few funding alternatives for the 
committee, I hope that in conference the Coast Guard's operating budget 
can be increased to reflect the President's request.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4556.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Chairman Carr, 
Representative Wolf, and the other members of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work on this bill, which 
makes the kind of investments this nation needs to maintain and improve 
our transportation infrastructure.
  In particular, I'd like to mention a few items of interest to me and 
the people of Colorado. First, I want to thank the committee for 
providing priority designation in the interstate maintenance 
discretionary account for the I-70/I-25 interchange in the 
Denver metro area, which is better known as the ``Mousetrap'' because 
of its high traffic volume and poor design.
  Rebuilding the Mousetrap has been a top priority for the Colorado 
Department of Transportation. These segments of I-25 and I-70 are major 
routes for hazardous material transportation, thus making the 
interchange one of both local and national significance. The 
committee's support for this project, as reflected in its continued 
priority designation, will ensure that the project moves along.
  Second, the committee has given priority designation in the 
discretionary bridge fund to the 23d Street viaduct reconstruction 
project. The reconstruction of the viaduct will make it much easier for 
people to get into and out of Denver during rush hour, for Rockies 
games at the new Coors Field, and during other peak traffic times. 
Priority designation is crucial to keeping this project going, and the 
committee's action will be very welcome by all Coloradans who travel in 
and out of Denver's lower downtown.
  Third, the committee has included $2 million in Federal Transit 
Administration funding for the purchase of 10 new buses by the Upper 
Eagle Valley Transit System in Vail, CO. These funds will allow the 
city of Vail to replace buses that were purchased in 1981 and have 
outlived their useful life. The buses currently in service in Vail do 
not meet emission requirements or accommodate disabled passengers, and 
the funding provided in the bill will rectify that problem.
  Members will also be interested in knowing that Vail has proposed a 
unique arrangement to share the buses. They'll be used by Vail during 
the winter months, when demand is greatest there, and used by other 
communities in the summer, when the need is greatest in those cities. I 
think this new and innovative arrangement is an important step forward 
in making sure that scarce Federal resources are stretched as far as 
possible, and I appreciate the committee's support for Vail's request.
  Finally, I want to note that this is, of course, the last time that 
Chairman Carr will be bringing the Transportation appropriations bill 
to the House floor. Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure serving on the 
committee with you, especially including our joint service together on 
the Commerce, Justice Subcommittee. I know we all wish you the best of 
luck as you move on to another challenge. Your efforts on behalf of 
Colorado's transportation needs have been greatly appreciated, and I 
hope to have the opportunity to continue working with you in conference 
committees on these and other issues in the future.
  Again, I'd like to commend and thank the members of the subcommittee, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this well thought out 
legislation.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my appreciation to the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for including $3 million in 
funding for the Hoosier Heartland Corridor.
  The Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor was authorized by the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act as a high priority 
congressional corridor. This project will link Fort Wayne to Lafayette 
by a four-lane highway. It is one of the top priorities of the Indiana 
Department of Transportation and enjoys broad bipartisan support in the 
communities all along the project route.
  The recently passed authorization legislation for the National 
Highway System, H.R. 4385, included $3 million in additional 
authorization for Hoosier Heartland Corridor. Therefore, this funding 
should not meet with any objections based upon an insufficient 
authorization level.
  The Hoosier Heartland Corridor will become a vital link in the 
economic development of north central Indiana. The corridor is a major 
delivery route for manufacturers and producers of goods. Tractor 
trailers use the road as well as passenger cars and slow-moving farm 
equipment. In addition, many portions of the existing configuration of 
the highway are narrow, two-lane, with narrow shoulders and drop offs. 
The State of Indiana has indicated that there will be a 50-percent 
reduction in accidents that will lead to savings both in terms of 
personal injuries and property damage.
  I am grateful that the Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Carr, and 
Mr. Wolf in particular, have recognized the merit of further Federal 
funding for this much needed project in north central Indiana.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4556

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $58,094,000, of which $3,962,000 shall remain available until 
     expended; and of which not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     available as the Secretary may determine for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds available for the purposes of 
     the Minority Business Resource Center in this Act may be used 
     for business opportunities related to any mode of 
     transportation.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, and development activities, including the 
     collection of national transportation statistics, to remain 
     available until expended, $2,693,000.

               Office of Commercial Space Transportation

                        operations and research

       For necessary expenses for operations and research 
     activities related to commercial space transportation, 
     $6,060,000, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                          Working Capital Fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Department of Transportation Working Capital Fund not 
     to exceed $88,750,000 shall be paid, in accordance with law, 
     from appropriations made available by this Act and prior 
     appropriations Acts to the Department of Transportation, 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Department of Transportation.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

            (including rescission of contract authorization)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for payments to air 
     carriers of so much of the compensation fixed and determined 
     under section 419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 
     amended (49 U.S.C. 1389), as is payable by the Department of 
     Transportation, $25,600,000 to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the implementation or execution of programs in 
     excess of $25,600,000 for the Payments to Air Carriers 
     program in fiscal year 1995: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be used by the Secretary of 
     Transportation to make payment of compensation under section 
     419 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, in 
     excess of the appropriation in this Act for liquidation of 
     obligations incurred under the ``Payments to air carriers'' 
     program: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be used for the payment of claims for such compensation 
     except in accordance with this provision: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     service to communities in the forty-eight contiguous States 
     and Hawaii that are located fewer than seventy highway miles 
     from the nearest hub airport, or that require a rate of 
     subsidy per passenger in excess of $200: Provided further, 
     That of funds provided for ``Small Community air Service'' by 
     Public Law 101-508, $13,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 is hereby 
     rescinded.

                            Rental Payments

       For necessary expenses for rental of headquarters and field 
     space and related services assessed by the General Services 
     Administration, $144,419,000: Provided, That of this amount, 
     $1,872,000 shall be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, 
     $38,728,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, $678,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline 
     Safety Fund, and $172,000 shall be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund: Provided further, That in addition, 
     for assessments by the General Services Administration 
     related to the space needs of the Federal Highway 
     Administration, $17,688,000, to be derived from ``Federal-aid 
     HIghways'', subject to the ``Limitation on General Operating 
     Expenses''.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, as authorized by 
     49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $15,000,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program, $400,000.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed fifteen passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, 
     as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $2,580,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; and of 
     which $25,000,000 shall be expended from the Boat Safety 
     Account: Provided, That the number of aircraft on hand at 
     any one time shall not exceed two hundred and eighteen, 
     exclusive of aircraft and parts stored to meet future 
     attrition: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this or any other Act shall be available 
     for pay or administrative expenses in connection with 
     shipping commissioners in the United States: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall 
     be available for expenses incurred for yacht documentation 
     under 46 U.S.C. 12109, except to the extent fees are 
     collected from yacht owners and credited to this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That the Commandant shall 
     reduce both military and civilian employment levels for 
     the purpose of complying with Executive Order No. 12839: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall 
     be available for special and incentive pay under section 
     301 of title 37, United States Code, to any Coast Guard 
     member assigned to a skill, rating, or specialty to which 
     special separation benefits under section 1174 of title 
     10, United States Code, or voluntary separation benefits 
     under section 1175 of such title will be paid.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     rebuilding, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $385,200,000, of which $32,500,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which 
     $201,750,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate 
     or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1999; $14,900,000 shall 
     be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 1997; 
     $31,50,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain 
     available until September 30 1997; $83,050,000 shall be 
     available for shore facilities and aids to navigation 
     facilities, to remain available until September 30, 1997; and 
     $44,000,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1995: Provided, That funds received from the 
     sale of the VC-11A aircraft shall be credited to this 
     appropriation for the purpose of acquiring new aircraft and 
     increasing aviation capacity.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $22,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for 
     payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. 
     Ch. 55), $562,585,000.

                            Reserve Training

       For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $66,000,000.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $20,310,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,150,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation funds received from State and local 
     governments, other public authorities, private sources, and 
     foreign countries, for expenses incurred for research, 
     development, testing, and evaluation.

  Mr. CARR of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill through page 9, line 5, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the portion of the bill 
described in the gentleman's unanimous-consent request?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

       For payment of necessary expenses incurred for recreational 
     boating safety assistance under Public Law 92-75, as amended, 
     $25,000,000, to be derived from the Boat Safety Account and 
     to remain available until expended.


                     amendment offered by mr. penny

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny: Page 9, strike lines 6 
     through 11.

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, before I make remarks on this specific 
amendment, I do want to comment on an observation made by the gentleman 
from Washington State. I, too, think that it is unfortunate that the 
appropriators bring to the floor, work which reflects many difficult 
choices, a variety of spending cuts, and yet all too often those cuts 
are not highlighted during floor debate. I am delighted that in one 
instance, the foreign aid appropriations bill, we have undertaken a 
process these past 3 years whereby the membership as a whole is 
afforded the opportunity to vote for an amendment which reflects all of 
the cuts considered and recommended by the committee. In that fashion, 
the committee's work is ratified by a vote of the floor, and more to 
the point, the committee gets credit for the cuts that they have 
recommended. I would hope that other appropriations subcommittee 
chairmen would consider that approach in the future, because they are 
deserving of credit for the choices and the cuts that they have 
recommended.
  In fairness to the chairman of this particular subcommittee, it 
should be noted that a variety of cuts have been included in the 
committee bill. They have reduced funding for the office of the 
Secretary, they have reduced funding in the area of highways and in 
aviation. In the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 
they have recommended almost $3 million in reductions. St. Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corp. reflects a reduction in spending. Right down 
the line, a procurement account, bonuses and awards, all have received 
cuts. There are cuts sprinkled throughout this bill, and it certainly 
is reflective of the work of this committee in trying to conform with 
the budget resolution which called for much tighter spending caps this 
year than has been true in years past.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, it will be inevitable that in spite 
of the choices made at the committee level, there will be exceptions 
taken here on the House floor and other legislators, as is our right, 
will bring forward other ideas for spending reductions.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several amendments pending today, three of 
them are my own. I want to present at this point one of those 
amendments.
  The premise of this amendment, as is true of the next two, is that 
the Clinton administration has established certain priorities which 
ought to be considered. They have recommended to the Congress certain 
program reductions and program cancellations. I think it appropriate to 
suggest that maybe the Clinton administration's cuts ought to be 
brought to a vote within the Congress as a whole.

  In this instance, the boat safety appropriation, a $25 million 
expenditure has been included for fiscal year 1995. This is a program 
that has historically provided financial assistance for the development 
and implementation of a coordinated national recreational boating 
safety program. Boating safety statistics do reflect that there has 
been great success over the years as a result of this initiative. The 
States collectively spend about 4 times more than they receive from the 
Federal Government for these boat safety programs. My home State of 
Minnesota is known nationally as the State of 10,000 lakes. Clearly, we 
have an interest in boat safety in our home State, but obviously we pay 
the bulk of the cost of that boat safety program with State funds. The 
administration concluded that, given the fact the vast majority of 
these dollars are appropriated at the State level and given the fact 
that we are talking about waters, lakes, rivers, and streams that are 
largely under State jurisdiction, that it is appropriate to withdraw 
Federal Government funding for the boat safety program. In their 
recommendation to the Congress, they ask that this be one of nearly 100 
programs that we cancel.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would simply honor the 
administration's request that this boat safety program be cancelled. I 
would urge favorable consideration of the measure.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, more people are killed in this country each year in 
boating accidents than any other form of transportation except for 
motor vehicles. Over 900 people are killed and more than 350,000 
injured last year in boating accidents. In response to this problem, 
the National Transportation Safety Board conducted a special study just 
last year and made several recommendations to improve boating safety 
all across this country.
  The Coast Guard's boating safety grants program will help implement 
the safety board's recommendations, because they can be used to target 
Federal funding to address the problems in boating education and 
boating safety enforcement. These funds go to virtually every State in 
this country to help improve boat safety programs in those States.

                              {time}  1330

  I would direct the Members' attention to pages 41 and 42 of the 
committee report, which indicates the amount of funding that is to be 
expected to be received by each of the States under this program. As 
that information shows, each Federal dollar put into this program 
leverages $5 put in it by the States. The total Federal investment in 
this bill is about $25 million, and that would, therefore, leverage 
about $125 million in State funds. This is the kind of leveraged 
investment that we should be supporting, not abandoning.
  Furthermore, the program is funded out of the aquatic resources trust 
fund, which is financed by a tax on motorboat fuel. Boaters are paying 
into this program, and they receive the benefits directly. Under the 
gentleman's amendment, boaters would still be required to pay the fuel 
tax, but would not receive the improvements in boating safety for which 
they are currently paying.
  Finally, the gentleman's Dear Colleague, distributed yesterday 
claimed there was little testimony that exists to support the 
continuation of this program. Let me advise the Members that my 
subcommittee held detailed hearings just this year on the Coast Guard 
programs under our jurisdiction, including this one, and significant 
testimony was provided on boating safety programs and the boating 
safety grant program. Additional testimony in support of this program 
was received from State boating safety officials. These hearings are 
available for any Member's review. It is simply not accurate to say the 
Committee on Appropriations' recommendation was not based on any 
hearing data.
  I am also aware that the authorization committee has also held recent 
hearings on this subject.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before I do, let me just say that it comes from one of 
the better Members on both sides of the aisle, either side.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] will be missed, not that he 
is leaving right now, because he will be here until the end of the 
year. But I may not have an opportunity to speak with respect to a 
couple of his amendments.
  He is one of the more thoughtful, I think, diligent, hard-working 
Members. I personally am going to be sorry to see him go.
  I do not support the amendment. I think the chairman made a very, 
very good case. It is safety. It is search and rescue. At the very time 
we approach the summer recreational boating season, this would 
absolutely be the wrong thing to do.
  So I reluctantly, well, not even reluctantly, but because of my 
affection for the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], I strongly urge 
the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one more example of an amendment that is penny 
wise and pound foolish.
  Supporters of this amendment are asking us to cut one of the most 
effective crime prevention and safety programs we have in America 
today.
  Let me say that one more time, Mr. Chairman: supporters of this 
amendment are asking us to cut one of the most effective crime 
prevention and safety programs we have in America today.
  I do not think we want to be doing that. The last time I checked, the 
American people want us to do more about crime, not less--whether that 
crime is on the streets or on the water.
  Let me put the Boating Safety Program in terms that everybody can 
understand. Let me give you a hypothetical example.
  Let us say a State is having problems with drunk driving.
  People are dying on the highways and putting other people's safety at 
risk.
  So in response, we put more police on the road.
  We step up prevention efforts.
  And we increase safety education.
  And in time, our efforts prove wildly successful.
  Drunk driving is reduced and our streets are made safer.
  Reasonable people would look at that situation and applaud a program 
that works.
  But supporters of this amendment would look at that situation and say 
now that we have cut crime, let us cut the program.
  Let us pull the cops off the streets.
  Let us stop the education programs.
  That is what this amendment is all about.
  We had a real problem with boating safety.
  The facility rate was extraordinarily high, and the safety of good, 
honest boaters was threatened.
  But since we started the Boating Safety Program, the fatality rate 
has reached an all-time low, and we have made America's waterways 
safer.
  But now that the program is working, we are being asked today to turn 
our backs on all the progress we've made. We can not afford to do that.
  We have cut the budget by 25 percent.
  The chairman of the National transportation Safety Board says this 
amendment is, ``misguided, dangerous, and a thinly veiled attempt at 
deficit reduction at boating safety's expense.''
  I could not agree more.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think we want an explosion of boating 
fatalities on our hands.
  This is one crime prevention and safety program that works. We should 
be strengthening it, not eliminating it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Penny amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Penny 
amendment, an amendment that would eliminate funding for the Coast 
Guard's extraordinarily successful State Boating Safety Grant Program. 
Members should oppose this amendment for several reasons.
  First, and the gentleman should not take this personally, this 
amendment will not save a penny. The program is structured in such a 
way that amounts not appropriated for boating safety will ultimately be 
spent on sport fish restoration projects.
  Second, the State Boating Safety Program has been an unqualified 
success in reducing boating fatalities. Since the program began in the 
1970's, deaths have dropped five-fold, from 20 per 100,000 boats in 
1971 to 4 per 100,000 boats by 1992. If the point of the amendment is 
to save money, it is most assuredly more cost-effective--and decidely 
more humane--for the Federal Government to prevent accidents rather 
than search for and rescue those imperiled by life-threatening 
situations.
  Third, a vote for this amendment is a vote to cut funding for every 
State and territory in the United States. In fiscal year 1993, a total 
of $36,333,497 in Federal boating safety grants was allocated to 55 
States and territories. Grants ranged from $220,000 for territories to 
over $3,000,000 for large States like Florid.
  Fourth, Mr. Penny asserts that there is little testimony to support 
continuation of this program. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
In the Congress alone, this program has been discussed at three 
hearings held by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and 
strongly supported by witnesses on each occasion.
  Finally, and as succinctly as I can put it, if this amendment is 
agreed to, no money will be saved, but lives will surely be lost.
  As the recreational boating season begins, let us keep our waterways 
safe. Vote ``no'' on the Penny amendment.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, as well. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. I do so recognizing 
that he is one of our few Members who goes through the budgets very 
thoroughly and seeks out these kinds of questions and programs and 
brings them to the full body and asks for us to examine them. That is 
exactly what has occurred.
  I did testify before the subcommittee of the chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Carr], on this very issue, because we in the Far 
West in the State of Oregon rely upon these moneys as part of a 
partnership with our local police officers as well. This is a 
partnership.
  The money does come from the boat users, and it goes back into their 
safety programs.
  In addition, State moneys are contributed as well to enhance the 
safety on our streams and rivers in the State of Oregon and throughout 
this land. So even though it is $25 million, these moneys are spread 
throughout the United States as America goes to the waterways for 
family and recreational values that they do offer, and so I do rise in 
opposition and hope the body will reject this amendment.
  Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As a member, 
and previous chairman, of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, I strongly 
support the Coast Guard's Boating Safety Grant Program.
  As the members of this body well know, I am a fiscal conservative. 
However, I do not believe that we should zero budget accounts designed 
for public safety. It is impossible to argue that the Coast Guard 
Boating Safety Program does not save lives. There are many people alive 
today because of this program. Of all Federal spending, I believe that 
proven public safety programs are some of the most important 
expenditures we make.
  Furthermore, this amendment will not reduce our deficit at all. The 
Coast Guard Safety Grant Program is funded by the Wallop-Breaux trust 
fund, financed by the gas tax on recreational boaters. If the Boat 
Safety Program is eliminated the funds would revert to the State Sport 
Fish Restoration Program--not to the Treasury. I respect the 
gentleman's desire to reduce our deficit; however, the trust fund 
financed Boating Safety Program is not the place.
  Please oppose this amendment and support our U.S. Coast Guard Boat 
Safety Program to save lives.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Penny 
amendment. The Penny amendment would totally eliminate the Coast 
Guard's State Boating Safety Grant Program.
  I assume that this amendment is being offered to save money. But it 
will not save a dime. If the $25 million recommended for the Boating 
Safety Program is eliminated, that money will automatically roll over 
into the Sport Fish Restoration Program which currently enjoys adequate 
funding.
  The State Boat Safety Program provides matching grants that allow 
states to put law enforcement and rescue personnel on state waterways 
where the Coast Guard does not patrol. Its simple, if we eliminate this 
program, we eliminate or significantly reduce state law enforcement on 
our coastal and inland waterways.
  The Boating Safety Program is paid for entirely by boaters. If the 
Boating Safety Program is eliminated, boaters will continue to pay the 
motorboat fuels tax, but the services that boaters count on will be 
gone.
  The Penny amendment will not save the Federal Government any money. 
But it will cost our States vital matching funds for law enforcement 
and safety programs and it could cost boaters their lives. Vote ``no'' 
on the Penny amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment to eliminate the $25 million appropriation to the Coast Guard 
for boat safety programs.
  This program is funded by a users fee placed on recreational boaters. 
Every time a recreational boater buys gas, he pays a fuel tax that in 
turn, funds the State Boat Safety Program. This tax was instituted with 
the express understanding of both this body and the recreational 
boaters that the proceeds of the tax would fund State Boat Safety 
Programs.
  This program is especially critical in the state of Florida. With our 
temperate climate, residents of Florida enjoy boating year round. In 
addition, the State is surrounded on three sides by water and has 
numerous lakes and rivers. These combined factors result in over 
700,000 residential boats using our waterways on an annual basis.
  Currently, Florida receives $3 million a year for boat safety 
programs. These funds are divided evenly between the Florida Game and 
Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection and are specifically earmarked for boating safety projects.
  The loss of these funds--paid by a users fee on boaters--will be 
devastating to Florida. Our boating safety programs will be drastically 
reduced. Boat safety education classes and safety literature will be 
eliminated and we will see at least a 35-percent loss of safety patrol 
services. The loss of these services will be an injustice to the 
recreational boater who is already paying for them.
  I strongly urge the rejection of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     administrative expenses for research and development, the 
     payment of obligations for the Aircraft Purchase Loan 
     Guarantee Program required pursuant to guarantees issued 
     under Public Law 85-307, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1324 note), 
     establishment of air navigation facilities and the operation 
     (including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, and carrying 
     out the provisions of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 
     of 1982, as amended, or other provisions of law authorizing 
     the obligation of funds for similar programs of airport and 
     airway development or improvement, lease or purchase of four 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, 
     $4,585,000,000, of which $2,450,250,000 shall be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Provided, That there may 
     be credited to this appropriation funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the provision of aviation services, including the maintenance 
     and operation of air navigation facilities and for issuance, 
     renewal or modification of certificates, including airman, 
     aircraft, and repair station certificates, or for tests 
     related thereto, or for processing major repair or alteration 
     forms: Provided further, That, of the funds available under 
     this head, $23,000,000 is available only for permanent change 
     of station moves for members of the air traffic workforce: 
     Provided further, That funds may be used to enter into a 
     grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     activities under the Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program 
     the obligations for which are in excess of $9,970,000 during 
     fiscal year 1995.

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee might be willing to enter into a colloquy with me on the 
subject of the FAA's Center for Management Development.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to join my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida, in a colloquy.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today would delete 
funding for the FAA's Center for Management Development at Palm Coast. 
I believe such an action would be a mistake. This facility is a model 
of partnership between the FAA, the academic community, and private 
sector entities, and it is specifically staffed and resourced to 
support the FAA's needs for management and training. The facility 
features state-of-the-art technological support and services 
specialized to meet the needs of the FAA. The center hosts some 3,500 
students each year, along with some 2,000 additional FAA employees at 
field sites throughout the country. Another 22,000 participate in 
correspondence programs offered through the center.
  The committee report cites budget considerations in making the case 
for closing the Center for Management Development. In addition to 
noting that the CMD has developed a business plan that would ensure 
greater savings and the delivery of upgraded services at no additional 
cost to the FAA, I would observe that even if the center were to close, 
the FAA would still be required to make lease payments on the CMD 
facility into 1997.
  It would seem ill advised to shut down the operation, given these 
facts. under the circumstances, I would like to suggest to the chairman 
that the subcommittee give this matter further review as the house and 
the other body move to conference. It is my strong sense that a 
thorough analysis of the situation would yield a decision to continue 
this unique and valuable operation.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. 
Chairman, I am aware of the congresswoman's concerns on this issue and 
believe that it does merit some additional consideration. I want to 
assure the gentlewoman that as the process unfolds through the Senate 
and through the conference, that we will take her views into 
consideration.
  Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the chairman for his willingness to take another 
look at this situation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend by colleague, 
the gentlelady from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] and ask that my remarks be 
associated with her comments made in the colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman from Michigan. My comments today are in support 
of retaining the Federal Aviation Administration Center for Management 
Development which is located in Palm Coast, FL.
  As a member of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, 
Aviation Subcommittee, I have been concerned about the operation and 
management of the FAA center to ensure that the taxpayers and Federal 
Government are receiving a proper return for their investment. I 
personally visited the center in Palm Coast on June 9, 1994. I had the 
opportunity to accompany FAA Administrator David Hinson on a visit to 
this facility. I want to report to the House that I was very impressed 
with the changes instituted at this center under Administrator Hinson's 
direction.
  The FAA is now operating this management center with new private 
sector contractors and new FAA personnel. In reorganizing, the FAA has 
expanded many programs to benefit management and other levels of 
employees, and has adopted a plan to secure alternate sources of future 
financing.
  While the bill's report language indicates the committee believes it 
may be cheaper for the FAA to provide such services through local or 
regional competition, the FAA is already utilizing private competitive 
options. My research indicates that this facility costs far less than 
other similar Federal management programs. Cutting this appropriation 
still leaves a Federal obligation to pay contract commitments.
  I would ask that the appropriate subcommittee staff or Members visit 
this facility before making any final decision relating to the fate of 
this management center. I believe that in fact this project is a good 
example of the Federal Government, private sector, and education 
working together. Finally, at a time when Federal buyouts are paring 
our administrative and management staffs it does not make sense to 
eliminate this potentially effective management training center.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no amendments to this paragraph, the Clerk 
will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or 
     purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental 
     facilities and equipment as authorized by the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1301 et 
     seq.), including initial acquisition of necessary sites by 
     lease or grant; engineering and service testing including 
     construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary 
     sites by lease or grant; and construction and furnishing of 
     quarters and related accommodations for officers and 
     employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at 
     remote localities where such accommodations are not 
     available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft 
     from funds available under this head; to be derived from the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $2,176,700,000, of which 
     $1,968,200,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1997, and of which $208,500,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1995: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and 
     modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds under this head for the Advanced 
     Automation System may be obligated until the Federal Aviation 
     Administration submits to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the House Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation a comprehensive program plan and up to 
     date estimate of the fiscal year 1995 budget requirement for 
     this program.


                              (rescission)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       Of the total unobligated balance from appropriations under 
     this head for fiscal year 1994 and prior years, $51,700,000 
     are rescinded.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, in accordance with 
     the provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 
     amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), including construction 
     of experimental facilities and acquisition of necessary sites 
     by lease or grant, $254,000,000, to be derived from the Air 
     and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, 
     other public authorities, and private sources, for 
     expenses incurred for research, engineering, and 
     development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and for noise 
     compatibility planning and programs under the Airport and 
     Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, and under other 
     law authorizing such obligations, $1,500,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the commitments for which are in excess of 
     $1,500,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 for grants-in-aid for 
     airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs, notwithstanding section 506(e)(4) of 
     the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of 
     funds available pursuant to section 1306 of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1536), and 
     in accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation 
     Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary 
     in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities 
     under title XIII of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration, operation, including 
     motor carrier safety program operations, and research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $524,021,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $216,805,000 of the amount provided herein shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1997.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       for payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of title 23, United States Code, section 
     402 administered by the Federal Highway Administration, to 
     remain available until expended, $10,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $100,000 of the amount appropriated herein shall be 
     available for ``Limitation on general operating 
     expenses'': Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the planning or execution 
     of programs the obligations of which are in excess of 
     $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 for ``Highway-Related 
     Safety Grants''.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $17,160,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 1995.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursements for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $17,000,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund


                      (limitation on direct loans)

                          (highway trust fund)

       During fiscal year 1995 and with the resources and 
     authority available, gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans shall not exceed $42,500,000.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of section 402 of Public Law 97-424, $73,000,000, 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the implementation or 
     execution of programs the obligations for which are in excess 
     of $74,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety Grants''.

                    Surface Transportation Projects

       For up to 80 percent of the expenses necessary for certain 
     highway and surface transportation projects and parking 
     facilities, including feasibility and environmental studies, 
     that advance methods of improving safety, reducing 
     congestion, or otherwise improving surface transportation, 
     $299,862,000, to remain available until expended.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Public 
     Law 92-513, as amended) and the National Traffic and Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Act, (Public Law 89-563, as amended) 
     $74,352,000, of which $38,327,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1997.


                             (rescissions)

       Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law 
     101-388, $103,929 are rescinded.
       Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law 
     101-516 and Public Law 101-164, $3,268,700 are rescinded.

                        Operations and Research


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 23 
     U.S.C. 403 and section 2006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund, $46,997,000, of which $29,891,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1997.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 153, 402, 408, and 410, section 
     211(b) of the National Driver Register Act of 1982, as 
     amended, and section 209 of Public Law 95-599, as amended, to 
     remain available until expended, $151,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     subsection 2009(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991, none of the funds in this Act shall 
     be available for the planning or execution of programs the 
     total obligations for which, in fiscal year 1995, are in 
     excess of $151,400,000 for programs authorized under 23 
     U.S.C. 402 and 410, as amended, of which $123,000,000 shall 
     be for ``State and community highway safety grants'', 
     $3,400,000 shall be for the ``National Driver Register'', and 
     $25,000,000 shall be for section 410 ``Alcohol-impaired 
     driving countermeasures programs'': Provided further, That 
     none of these funds shall be used for construction, 
     rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings 
     and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or 
     structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $5,153,000 of the funds made available for section 402 may 
     be available for administering ``State and community 
     highway safety grants'': Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for section 
     410 may be available for technical assistance to the 
     States.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $13,650,000, of 
     which $1,300,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of a program making 
     commitments to guarantee new loans under the Emergency Rail 
     Services Act of 1970, as amended, and that no new commitments 
     to guarantee loans under section 211(a) or 211(h) of the 
     Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, as amended, shall 
     be made: Provided further, That, as part of the Washington 
     Union Station transaction in which the Secretary assumed the 
     first deed of trust on the property and, where the Union 
     Station Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is 
     obligated to make payments on such deed of trust on the 
     Secretary's behalf, including payments on and after September 
     30, 1988, the Secretary is authorized to receive such 
     payments directly from the Union Station Redevelopment 
     Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged for the 
     first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
     trust with those funds: Provided further, That such 
     additional sums as may be necessary for payment on the first 
     deed of trust may be advanced by the Administrator from 
     unobligated balances available to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, to be reimbursed from payments received from 
     the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.

  Mr. CARR of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill through page 20, line 10, 
be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the portion of the bill 
designated in the unanimous consent request?
  If there are none, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Local Rail Freight Assistance

       For necessary expenses for rail assistance under section 
     5(q) of the Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                     Amendment offered by Mr. penny

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny: Page 20, strike lines 11 
     through 15.

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tracks with the previous 
amendment in that this program too was recommended for cancellation by 
the Clinton administration. The objections raised to my amendment 
earlier are clearly objections to the decision of the administration 
that the boat safety program could safely be cancelled. It is of 
concern to me that in a State like Minnesota, where we certainly have 
plenty of water, with 10,000 lakes, that we should feel the need to 
turn to the Federal Government for funding for a program that is 
clearly and primarily a State responsibility.
  I accept the judgment of the House that that program ought to be 
continued, but now want to ask of the membership whether the local rail 
freight assistance program is one that ought to be reviewed. Here 
again, just as with the boat safety program, we have an initiative that 
is now largely financed at the State level and these Federal funds, at 
best, are supplemental. This program, I believe, has provided some 
benefit in saving rural rail lines. I know of some of that benefit even 
in my own State of Minnesota. But, like the boat safety program, it is 
an instance in which a very small percent of total funds for this 
purpose are provided by the Federal level. It is an instance in which 
we are dealing with rail lines that are primarily within the boundaries 
of a given State. For that reason, it is reasonable to question whether 
this is a program that should be funded solely with State dollars 
rather than a Federal expenditure.
  I would remind my colleagues as well that this particular program was 
among the 100 programs that the Clinton administration attempted to 
cancel in this year's budget. I would ask that we consider the 
administration's priorities in attempting to weed out unnecessary 
spending at the Federal level and to set some priorities within our 
transportation budget. I urge favorable consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's ``Dear Colleague'' sent around 
yesterday on this subject merely states that in his view the local rail 
freight program is not justified in a tight budget year and notes that 
it was not included in the President's budget. While we have looked 
diligently at all the programs in the Department of Transportation's 
budget as recommended by the President's budget, we are at the same 
time not a rubber stamp. We are well aware that this program was not 
included in the President's budget. It was included in the Department 
of Transportation's request to OMB, however. The department recognizes 
the importance of this program and continues to request funding for it 
in their own internal process. I suppose if we wanted to declare OMB 
the font of all knowledge in the budget process, we could save 
ourselves a lot of time each year and maybe abolish the Committee on 
Appropriations and maybe even the Congress. But the people left it up 
to us to make the final decisions, not our friends down at OMB.
  This program stretches a very few Federal dollars a very long way. 
For example, in fiscal year 1994 a total of 31 States submitted 
applications totalling $42 million in competition for the $15.3 million 
that was available. Existing law requires that each application include 
a detailed cost-benefit analysis, and the States share in the costs. 
The greater the State's share the higher the benefit-cost ratio and the 
more likely it is that a particular project will receive Federal funds. 
With so much competition, there is high assurance that only the best 
projects are being selected. None of the funds are earmarked or set 
aside for particular projects.
  This program was also the only authorized program available to 
finance emergency railroad-related work after the devastating Midwest 
floods of last year.
  Mr. Chairman, we made other reductions in this bill in order to find 
funds for LRFA. It is a solid program with a history of performance. 
Grants are distributed all over this country to help rehabilitate rail 
track and improve rail commerce. Importantly, this program is targeted 
toward regional and small lines that came about after the deregulation 
of the railroads in this country a few years ago. Many of these local 
and short-line railroads are undercapitalized. 
LRFA has been the source of some funds, it leverages funds to get those 
rail lines that are the feeders, the nerve endings of our rail system 
in America, back to standard. The program is authorized, it continues 
to be supported in the internal documents of the Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration. In short, it 
has broad-based support, and with all due respect to the gentleman from 
Minnesota, I recommend that the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman explained the reasons as well as 
they could be explained. The local rail freight assistance program is 
the only--and I stress the only--Federal financial system program 
available for this rail freight assistance. These are small short 
lines. This is the only Federal program available for the necessary 
capital. The program has been extremely effective in helping States 
preserve and maintain an increasing number of local and regional 
railroads being created.

                              {time}  1350

  It has been stimulated with regard to economic growth and jobs, and, 
lastly, there is over $440 million in track rehabilitation that is 
needed. So I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to defeat the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
text?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, $47,067,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $17,145,000, to remain available until expended.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program

       For necessary expenses related to Northeast Corridor 
     improvements authorized by title VII of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended 
     (45 U.S.C. 851 et seq.) and the Rail Safety Improvement Act 
     of 1988, $165,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That no new loan guarantee commitments shall be 
     made during fiscal year 1995: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 
     1989 and each fiscal year thereafter all amounts realized 
     from the sale of notes or securities sold under authority of 
     this section shall be considered as current year domestic 
     discretionary outlay offsets and not as ``asset sales'' or 
     ``loan prepayments'' as defined by section 257(12) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That any underwriting fees and 
     related expenses shall be derived solely from the proceeds of 
     the sales.

           National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Development


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     planning or execution of the National Magnetic Levitation 
     Prototype Development program as defined in subsections 
     1036(b) and 1036(d)(1)(A) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

                    Next Generation High Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for Next Generation High Speed Rail 
     studies, corridor planning, development, demonstration, and 
     implementation, $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds under this head may be made 
     available for grants to states for high speed rail corridor 
     design, feasibility studies, and environmental analyses.

          Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High Speed Rail


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For grants and payment of obligations incurred in carrying 
     out the provisions of the High-Speed Ground Transportation 
     program as defined in subsections 1036(c) and 1036(d)(1)(B) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991, including planning and environmental analyses, 
     $3,400,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for the implementation 
     or execution of programs the obligations for which are in 
     excess of $5,000,000.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation authorized by 45 
     U.S.C. 601, to remain available until expended, $771,700,000, 
     of which $526,700,000 shall be available for operating losses 
     incurred by the Corporation, for mandatory passenger rail 
     service payments, and for labor protection costs, and of 
     which $245,000,000, not to become available until July 1, 
     1995, shall be available for capital improvements: Provided, 
     That none of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for 
     lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles or for the hire 
     of vehicle operators for any officer or employee, other than 
     the president of the Corporation, excluding the lease of 
     passenger motor vehicles for those officers or employees 
     while in official travel status: Provided further, That of 
     the funds provided under this head for operating losses, 
     $8,000,000 is available only for the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation's share of short-term avoidable costs 
     for state-supported rail services authorized under section 
     403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act, as amended.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by the Federal 
     Transit Act and 23 U.S.C. chapter 1 in connection with these 
     activities, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $43,060,000.

                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     sections 9, 16(b)(2), and 18 of the Federal Transit Act, to 
     remain available until expended, $1,356,050,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $2,506,050,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided under this head for formula grants no more 
     than $700,000,000 may be used for operating assistance under 
     section 9(k)(2) of the Federal Transit Act: Provided further, 
     That of the funds provided under this head, $16,000,000 shall 
     be available for grants for the costs of planning, delivery 
     and temporary use of transit vehicles for special 
     transportation needs of the XXVth Summer Olympiad and the Xth 
     Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, 
     of which $5,600,000 shall be available for the Paralympic 
     Games: Provided further, That in allocating the funds 
     designated in the preceding proviso, the Secretary may make 
     grants to any public body the Secretary deems appropriate, 
     and such grants shall not be subject to any local share 
     requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this 
     Act or the Federal Transit Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available for the XXVth Olympiad or the Xth 
     Paralympiad for the Disabled shall be expended before October 
     1, 1995.

                   University Transportation Centers

       For necessary expenses for university transportation 
     centers as authorized by section 11(b) of the Federal Transit 
     Act, to remain available until expended, $6,000,000.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses for transit planning and research as 
     authorized by section 26 of the Federal Transit Act, to 
     remain available until expended, $92,250,000.

                  Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out section 
     21(a) of the Federal Transit Act, $1,150,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended and to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That $1,150,000,000 shall be paid from 
     the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's formula grants account.

  Mr. CARR of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill through page 26, line 14, 
be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the text?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Discretionary Grants


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $1,725,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 for 
     grants under the contract authority in section 21(b) of the 
     Federal Transit Act: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     provision of law, there shall be available for fixed guideway 
     modernization, $725,000,000; there shall be available for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities, $353,330,000; and there shall be available for 
     new fixed guideway systems, $646,670,000, to be available as 
     follows:
       $48,000,000 for the South Boston Piers transitway project;
       $50,000,000 for the Chicago central area circulator 
     project;
       $33,770,000 for the Dallas South Oak Cliff LRT project;
       $5,000,000 for the DART North Central light rail extension 
     project;
       $6,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project;
       $20,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
     project;
       $60,000,000 for the Houston Regional Bus Plan program;
       $165,000,000 for the Los Angeles Metro Rail (MOS-3) 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Miami Metrorail north corridor extension 
     project;
       $500,000 for the New Jersey Urban Core project;
       $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor 
     project;
       $45,000,000 for the New York Queens Connection project;
       $2,400,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky 
     rail line project;
       $10,000,000 for the Orange County Transitway project;
       $10,000,000 for the Pittsburgh Busway projects;
       $73,500,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project;
       $10,000,000 for the Salt Lake City light rail project: 
     Provided, That such funding may be made available for related 
     high-occupancy vehicle lane and intermodel corridor design 
     costs: Provided further, That notwithstanding the provisions 
     of Public Law 103-122, funds provided for the Salt Lake City 
     light rail project in that Act may be used for final design;
       $40,300,000 for the San Francisco BART Extension/Tasman 
     corridor project;
       $10,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren Urbano 
     project;
       $4,700,000 for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail 
     project;
       $19,500,000 for the St. Louis Metro Link LRT project;
       $1,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project;
       $10,000,000 for the Twin Cities central corridor project;
       $5,000,000 for the Wisconsin central commuter project; and
       $5,000,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New 
     York.


                     amendment offered by mr. penny

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny: Page 26, line 20, strike 
     ``$1,725,000,000'' and insert ``$1,501,000,000''.
       Page 26, line 24, strike ``$725,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$760,000,000''.
       Page 27, line 1, strike ``$353,330,000'' and insert 
     ``$311,000,000''.
       Page 27, strike line 3 and insert ``$400,000,000.''.
       Page 27, strike line 4 and all that follows through page 
     29, line 10.

  Mr. PENNY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment gets to some real money. We 
are talking over $200 million of savings if this amendment is adopted. 
The President, in his request to Congress, suggested that we allocate 
$1.5 billion for these discretionary grants for transit purposes. The 
committee in its deliberation increased that amount to $1.725 billion, 
an increase of $224 million beyond the President's request. My 
amendment would reduce the amounts available in two of the categories 
to conform with the request of the administration.
  In the first instance, Mr. Chairman, monies made available for fixed 
guideway modernization we would actually increase to the President's 
level, from $725 million to $760 million. This allocation would conform 
with the President's priority to put more of our funding into these 
fixed guideway systems. In the second instance, a slight reduction, 
from $353 million to $311 million would be recommended for acquisition 
of buses and bus-related facilities.
  The major change, and this is a change that reflects the Clinton 
administration's priorities in this regard, is a reduction from the 
$646,670,000 available for other fixed guideway systems or new starts. 
We would reduce that amount to $400 million.
  The Clinton administration has attempted, ever since the President 
was sworn in, to put the brakes on demonstration projects and new 
starts in this regard. Their recommendation this year was somewhat more 
modest than a lot of us anticipated. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, the 
Clinton administration is trying to send a signal that we should 
stipulate fewer of these demonstration projects for the future, and the 
cut of $246 million in this category is reflective of their desire to 
see us back away from these line-item designations.
  In particular, the committee has not only allocated a higher amount 
for these new start projects, but they have designated virtually all of 
that money for projects of their choosing: $48 million for South Boston 
Piers transitway, $50 million for Chicago central area circulator 
project, $33 million for a Dallas South Oak Cliff LRT project, $20 
million for a Florida Tri-County commuter rail project, $60 million for 
the Houston Regional Bus Plan, $165 million for the Los Angeles Metro 
Rail project, $10 million for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor, 
$45 million for the New York Queens Connection, $10 million for Orange 
County Transitway, $10 million for the Pittsburgh Busway, $73 million 
for the Portland Westside LRT project, $10 million for Salt Lake City. 
The list goes on.
  The point is that we have designated within the committee bill 
numerous specific projects, and the Department of Transportation will 
have virtually no discretion as to how to prioritize these 
demonstration projects across the Nation. That is because in allocating 
the money for this account we have specifically designated where the 
Department of Transportation must spend virtually every dime.
  The White House has repeatedly raised its objections to this sort of 
line item appropriation for demonstration projects. They have 
continually criticized demonstration project funding, and their budget 
has reflected a desire to ratchet down our age-old practice of bringing 
home projects to our district based on an allocation spelled out in 
these appropriation bills.
  There are priority transit projects which must be explored. I believe 
that DOT's funding criteria is sufficient to demonstrate to the 
American public the sorts of mass transit systems that make the most 
sense for our Nation's future. I do not believe that we need a list of 
these projects spelled out in this committee print. I urge that we 
conform with the President's request in this regard, and, to do that, 
we need to adopt the pending amendment.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my 
colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], I rise in opposition to his 
amendment. The gentleman from Minnesota is my good friend and a real 
leader in the fight to cut the budget in responsible ways. Nonetheless, 
I find myself in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] seeks to 
reduce the discretionary grants program by $224 million to bring the 
account into agreement with the budget request, as he has said.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's recommendations for transit 
discretionary grants brings the program much more into agreement with 
the authorization legislation passed by the Congress and signed into 
law by the President in 1991. That legislation, the so-called ISTEA, 
authorized $1.725 billion in contract authority for fiscal year 1995 
for discretionary grants. It further authorized 40 percent of that 
total for rail modernization, 40 percent for section 3 new starts, and 
20 percent for buses and bus-related facilities. This excludes an 
additional $325 million in general funds authorized by ISTEA.
  The bill as reported from the Appropriations Committee limits 
obligations on discretionary grants to the authorized level of $1.725 
billion. It provides that 42 percent of the total, or $725 million, be 
used for rail modification instead of the 50 percent that the 
administration's budget directed. It provides that 37.5 percent, or 
$646.7 million, be used for new starts instead of 26.7 percent, or only 
$400 million as proposed by the administration.
  It also should be noted that in each category, rail mod, new starts, 
and buses, the amounts recommended are below the comparable figures for 
fiscal year 1994. In every case, the committee's bill is closer to the 
legislation enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. In 
addition, for each individual new start project listed in the bill, the 
amount recommended is within the amount authorized either by existing 
law or contained in the National Highway System bill that passed the 
House last month by a vote of 412 to 12.
  I submit to my colleagues that in this account, the prerogatives and 
perspectives of the Congress are very much preferable to the green eye 
shade bean counters at the Office of Management and Budget. Make no 
mistake about it. That is where the cuts were made. The Federal Transit 
Administration wanted to budget $2 billion for discretionary grants in 
1995. The Department of Transportation's request to OMB was for even 
more, $2.05 billion, including $820 million for section 3 new starts. 
The FTA and the Department know what the demand and the needs are for 
discretionary grants in this country. The Department knows that if 
funded at the level of only $400 million requested in the budget 
prepared by OMB, several projects will experience construction 
stoppages with resulting cost increase, in loss of jobs, and other 
increasing costs.
  For one project, the committee has been advised that if the funding 
above the budget request that we have recommended is not provided, 
costs will be increased by at least $70 million, and the project could 
be delayed by at least 3 years. It was in an effort to avoid situations 
such as this that the committee carefully considered the requests for 
all projects and submitted the recommendations we are considering 
today. Each and every project also had to comply with our detailed 
question naive and submit detailed criteria for our decisionmaking.
  It is true that we have reordered the administration's priorities 
somewhat. We have suggested savings elsewhere in the bill, such as the 
$90 million requested for remodeling the James A. Farley Post Office 
Building in New York City or the $30 million budgeted for a Coast Guard 
program that is experiencing schedule slippage, the VTS program.
  Mr. Chairman, we have applied those savings in a number of other 
projects for which we have provided in section 3. We believe we have 
made a better balance of the transportation needs of the country than 
OMB.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] has made some very good 
points, so it would be redundant for me to go over them. I would say 
there may be one or two exceptions in this category, so that if there 
was a separate vote on them, I would have a hard choice to vote for 
them. But I think, looking at the overall situation, the committee has 
criteria and the committee has looked at this very, very carefully.
  As the members of the committee remember, when I spoke initially in 
the general debate, I made the comment that the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Carr] and the committee have established criteria whereby we 
examined these new projects, and I think the committee but for one or 
two cases has made a very good choice here.
  So, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons given, I do oppose the amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. Chairman, these proposals have been subjected to hearings by the 
subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and the 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] of the 
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Public Works Committee. 
In addition, detailed justification material was submitted to both 
subcommittees.
  This proposal was included in section 122 of H.R. 4385, the National 
Highway System bill which passed this House by an overwhelming vote. 
There has been full public scrutiny of this proposal and this House 
just a few weeks ago voted overwhelmingly for it.
  This Dade County project will build a transit line through an area of 
economic deprivation. The populations to be served is dependent upon 
public transportation. Public transportation is the primary means of 
getting to jobs. Dade County is the fourth most congested metropolitan 
area in the Nation. All the highway capacity that can be added has been 
added. The only means of reducing congestion and meeting the needs of 
future growth is through rail transit.
  These proposals create jobs by providing a means so that people can 
get to work. The adoption of this amendment means that people will not 
be able to get jobs. If you want to reduce the unemployment rate, 
reduce the welfare roles and thereby reduce the deficit, then vote no 
on this amendment. If you want to reduce air pollution, then vote no.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment which should be summarily 
rejected.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As Chair of 
the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over transit issues, I have 
worked closely with Chairman Carr on a broad range of transportation 
issues.
  He should be commended for his hard work in bringing H.R. 4556 to the 
floor in its current form. This is a good bill which balances the need 
for deficit reduction with very real unmet transportation needs across 
America. Chairman Carr and the members of his subcommittee spent day 
after day, often all day, hearing testimony from countless witnesses on 
transportation issues.
  The Penny amendment, by slashing $224 million from the section 3 
transit program, destroys this balance and makes a mockery of the 
hearing process. Most importantly, the amendment would hurt transit 
systems of all sizes across the country. Section 3 provides badly 
needed funds to modernize existing rail transit systems, to construct 
new transit systems, and to provide funds for the purchase of buses and 
bus facilities. The funds are vitally needed to meet clean air goals, 
to reduce congestion, and to provide transportation to those without 
access to an automobile.
  The bill before us actually reduces the amount of funding for transit 
compared to the President's budget. The mix of funding in the bill is a 
bit different than in the President's budget; for example, section 3 is 
higher and section 9 is lower. What this amendment would do is cut 
transit funding wherever it is higher than the President's request, but 
make no change where it is lower.
  Thus, while the bill before us cuts the President's request for 
transit by $142 million, the amendment would leave us $366 million 
below the President's request for transit, a very serious attack on 
transit service in this country.
  We all support the goal of deficit reduction; but, H.R. 4556 already 
cuts section 3 to a level more than $300 million below its authorized 
level. Appropriations for the transit program as a whole are more than 
$700 million below their authorized level.
  In other words, transit programs have already made a $700 million 
down payment on deficit reduction for fiscal year 1995.
  Making deeper cuts, ignoring the committee hearing process, and 
denying transit service to those who need it the most would be short-
sighted and extremist.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We can get 
carried away with all these savings. We might as well vote down the 
whole bill and save $35 billion, or at least the $14 billion in 
discretionary appropriations, if you want to start saving money.
  We can stop government if you want to. We can save $1.5 trillion by 
voting against all of the appropriations bills. But to run the 
government, there is a normal process, and these projects, as I 
understand it, have all been authorized. They have gone through the 
process, as the gentleman from California, Mr. Mineta, just stated.
  His Committee on Public Works and Transportation has fulfilled its 
responsibility of reviewing these projects. Last year, some projects 
were not authorized. But this time, these projects were authorized. 
And, the authorization bill passed by over 400 votes. So all of the 
projects in the Penny amendment specifically are authorized. The 
subcommittee, under the leadership of the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], has done a good job. The gentleman has strictly 
followed the authorization process, including for one of the projects 
in which I do have an interest. I concede that. It is called the Canal 
Street Streetcar.
  Now, some people could say that the Canal Streetcar project might not 
have been properly examined. Well, it has been examined thoroughly by 
not only the authorization committee, but by the Appropriations 
subcommittee. A 50 page report examines the benefits of the streetcar 
corridor project. It says that it has tremendous value in reducing 
traffic congestion in the City of New Orleans, and that it is projected 
to raise about $1 billion in increased ridership. It reduces pollution. 
And it has great value in fuel savings because you are going to 
streetcars versus those smelly gas burning buses.
  Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, buses are made in Detroit, but I prefer 
streetcars. They do not pollute. They run clean, they have historical 
significance, and they provide great transportation. They are safe, and 
they do their job in an energy efficient manner. The streetcar project 
is a good project.
  The New Orleans streetcar and the San Francisco cable car are those 
types of projects which demonstrate the wisdom of the ages. They worked 
well 100 years ago, and they work equally well, if not better, today. 
This is a good project, the type of project that, frankly, you can 
always eliminate, I suppose. But at some point, we have to understand 
that we can spend money on worthwhile projects, or we can just not 
spend money at all. We can just scratch all of the budget and save a 
lot of money and just eliminate Government altogether, and perhaps we 
will be doing the taxpayers a service.
   I happen to be a fiscally conservative person, who scores very high 
on fiscally conservative rankings. But I think in this instance, we 
have to recognize that when you have a Government process which works, 
which allows various committees and subcommittees to provide checks and 
balances for each other, then ultimately you have to reach a 
conclusion.
  Are you going to spend any money or no money? If you are going to 
spend some money, you ought to do it with the projects that go through 
the hoops and comply with the legislative process. In this instance, 
virtually every one of these projects that the gentleman has in his 
amendment have complied with the process. So I think this amendment is 
out of order and should be rejected.
  Mr. PENNY. If the gentleman would yield for one quick question, you 
made reference to the fact that streetcars were a good idea. History 
proves that. Today, with our environmentally conscious electorate and 
legislation that is steering us in an environmental direction, it has 
proven that these streetcars have some virtue once again.
  But I wanted to ask, 100 years ago, did the Federal Government help 
New Orleans build this streetcar system?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. No, I doubt that they did. Of course, I was not 
around then, but I would have to say that in all probability, they did 
not. But the Government has since become involved in mass transit 
projects, and as mass transit projects go, this is probably one of the 
best in the Nation. so I would urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Penny amendment. For 
far too long transit has been treated like a poor step child. Finally, 
under the leadership of Chairman Carr and this subcommittee, we are 
reversing this trend.
  This amendment would take critical funding away from bus projects 
nationwide. It would take funding away from innovative, new, 
congestion-relieving transit projects. And it would take funds away 
from efforts to modernize and make critical repairs to older transit 
systems across the country. This is wrong.
  As I stated before, our subcommittee took a very hard look at our 
investment priorities. In the face of incredibly tight budget 
constraints we established investment criteria.
  We asked tough questions. We made investment decisions based on 
merit. The projects supported in section 3 are good projects and are 
worthy of our support. I urge my colleagues to support investment in 
public transit and reject this amendment.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it upsets me that this body is actually considering the 
elimination of the boating safety account of the Aquatic Resources 
Trust Fund, which is one of the few excellent examples of a Federal 
program that works.
  The boating safety account is funded entirely by the user fees paid 
by recreational boaters on marine fuel and equipment. These fees 
directly go into a trust fund which enables 55 States and territories 
to train and purchase equipment for law enforcement personnel, provide 
boating safety education and inspection, and support search and rescue 
facilties. The loss of this user-fee account would devastate boating 
safety programs and impact directly on boating safety in general.
  Since this grant program began in the early 1970's, boating 
fatalities have dropped fivefold, from 20 fatalities per 100,000 boats 
in 1971 to 4 per 100,000 boats in 1992.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is vital that the boating safety 
account remain intact and we should do our best to ensure that it does.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill? If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out section 
     21(b) of the Federal Transit Act, administered by the Federal 
     Transit Administration, $1,500,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until 
     expended.

                  Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 103(e)(4) related to transit projects, $48,030,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding the formula for apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 
     103(e)(4)(J), of the amount made available under this head, 
     only $9,500,000 shall be available for the substitute transit 
     project approved under section 1045 of Public Law 102-240.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 14 of Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

       For necessary expenses for operation and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $10,271,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance, Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $26,074,000, of 
     which $185,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $2,468,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That up to $1,000,000 in fees 
     collected under section 106(c)(11) of the Hazardous Materials 
     Transportation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1805(c)(11)) 
     shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, there may be credited to this 
     appropriation up to $1,000,000 in funds received from user 
     fees established to support the electronic tariff filing 
     system: Provided further, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation funds received from user fees established to 
     defray the costs of obtaining, preparing, and publishing in 
     automatic data processing tape format the United States 
     International Air Travel Statistics data base published by 
     the Department.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (pipeline safety fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by section 5 of the 
     Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, and the 
     Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, as amended, and 
     to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990, $32,967,000; of which $2,432,500 shall 
     be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1997; and of which 
     $30,534,500 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $14,323,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 1997.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (Emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 117A(i)(3)(B) 
     of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, 
     $400,000 to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1997; Provided, That 
     not more than $10,550,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1995 from amounts made available by 
     section 117A(h)(6)(B) and (i)(1), (2) and (4) of the 
     Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That no such funds shall be made available for 
     obligation by individuals other than the Secretary of 
     Transportation or his designee.

                       Alaska Pipeline Task Force


                              (Rescission)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-388, $544,000 are rescinded.

  Mr. CARR of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill through page 33, line 9, be 
considered as read, printed be printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill? If 
not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended, $40,000,000: Provided, That not more 
     than $1,000,000 of the funds made available under this head 
     shall be available for implementation of Public Law 101-576.


                    amendment offered by mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: Page 33, line 14, strike 
     the colon and all that follows through ``101-576'' on line 
     17.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that Mr. Clinger, the 
ranking Republican on the Government Operations Committee, and I are 
offering, would delete language in the bill that prohibits full funding 
of the Chief Financial Officers Act in the Department of 
Transportation. Congress passed the CFO Act in 1990 to bring better 
financial accountability to the Federal Government.
  The CFO Act was a result of the financial scandals that hit the 
Federal Government over the past 20 years. Remember the problems at 
HUD? The CFO Act was designed to make sure that that type of financial 
mismanagement and the loss to the taxpayers doesn't happen again.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 4556 includes a restriction on carrying out the 
act. The amendment that Mr. Clinger and I are offering would lift a $1 
million cap on the amount of money the Department of Transportation 
inspector general can spend on auditing financial statements. These 
statements are required by the CFO Act. And I would point out that DOT 
is the only Department prohibited from complying with the CFO Act 
because of a funding restriction.
  One of the reasons that you will hear this cap is in the bill, is 
concerns that the inspector general will not have enough financial 
resources to continue performing program audits, those audits that look 
at how specific programs are working. In fact, sound program audits are 
anchored in solid financial audits. Without adequate financial systems, 
internal controls, and management tools in place, managers cannot 
possibly have the information they need to make good management 
decisions on how to run those programs.
  Mr. Chairman, agency officials, including chief financial officers, 
inspectors general, and agency heads, have all stated that financial 
audits mandated by the act are instrumental in helping them address 
significant financial management problems. The administration and the 
General Accounting Office fully support this amendment. So do groups 
such as Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers 
Union, and the Council for Excellence in Government, which I would like 
to ask unanimous consent to include letters stating their support, 
together with other materials at this point in the Record.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to stop financial mismanagement 
and waste. Let us fully implement the Chief Financial Officers Act. I 
urge your support for this amendment.

Letters in Support of Conyers/Clinger Amendment to the Fiscal Year 1995 
  Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The 1995 Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Bill places a restriction of $1 
     million on the amount the Department of Transportation 
     Inspector General can spend on conducting audits required by 
     the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. In reaction to a 
     similar restriction contained in the 1994 Transportation and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, the President's 1995 
     Budget requested that this restriction not be included in the 
     1995 appropriating language.
       We continue to support the removal of the $1 million 
     restriction.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____



                                    General Accounting Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC

     Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Operations, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC:
       This letter responds to your request for our views on an 
     amendment that would remove the $1 million limitation placed 
     on the Department of Transportation Inspector General in 
     meeting the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers 
     (CFO) Act. This limitation in the past has restricted the 
     ability of the Transportation IG to meet all of its 
     responsibilities under the CFO Act.
       GAO strongly supports the CFO Act and believes that 
     achievements of its objectives are important to improved 
     financial management. Our governmentwide experience in 
     reviewing agencies' efforts to implement the CFO Act, 
     particularly the act's requirement for annual audited 
     financial statements, demonstrates that the benefits of the 
     CFO Act far outweigh the costs.
       As GAO testified before the Senate Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs earlier this year and plans to testify 
     before your committee later this month, the CFO Act has 
     resulted in numerous benefits including:
       Significantly more accurate and useful information on the 
     government's financial status and its operations
       Substantial savings of resources through recovery of funds 
     due the government, and more efficient use of funds;
       A more in depth understanding of the extent and pervasive 
     nature of the internal control and financial management 
     systems problems facing the government;
       A better knowledge of the limited extent to which the 
     Congress and program managers can rely on the financial 
     information they receive; and
       Improvements in management's accountability for, and focus 
     on, strong financial management, including the need for 
     effective controls and systems.
       Agency officials, including CFOs, IGs, and agency heads 
     have stated that the financial audits mandated under the act 
     have been instrumental in helping them address significant 
     financial management problems. In addition, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget agrees with these 
     assessments and reported to the Congress last November that 
     the pilot program under the CFO Act has been successful.
       Throughout government, the CFO Act is producing great 
     benefits in improving government operations, and we believe 
     that sufficient funding to meet the act's requirements is a 
     wise investment of the government's resources.

                                                   Gene L. Dodaro,
                                    Assistant Comptroller General.
                                  ____



                               Financial Executives Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Carr,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Financial Executives Institute (FEI) 
     would like to express its strong opposition to the $1 million 
     cap imposed on the Transportation Department's Office of the 
     Inspector General for auditing activities related to the 
     Chief Financial Officers (CFC) Act.
       As a professional association representing over 14,000 
     senior financial executives from 8,000 companies throughout 
     the United States, we have long understood that timely 
     reliable financial information is vital for effective 
     decision-making, planning, and ultimately, for improved 
     productivity.
       We are particularly alarmed by the statements of the 
     Subcommittee which questions the need for full implementation 
     of the CFO Act, as well as the benefits of good financial 
     information. In our review of the Fiscal Year 1993 CFO Act's 
     Annual report, we discovered widespread financial management 
     problems in the Department of Transportation that could 
     result in millions, if not billions, of taxpayers dollars 
     being at risk. For example:
       1. ``The Highway Trust Fund audit report indicated that the 
     lack of documentation for an estimated liability of 
     approximately $935 million and the auditors' inability to 
     apply other procedures to validate the fairness of the amount 
     resulted in a disclaimer of an opinion on the financial 
     statements.''
       (2) ``The FAA audit report indicated that the lack of 
     available automated detail records and the inability of the 
     auditors to use manual records prevented them from expressing 
     an opinion on the financial statements. The report on 
     internal control structure indicated five material 
     weaknesses: inconsistent/incorrect processing of fund usage 
     transactions, unconfirmed balance of year end purchase-in-
     transit inventory, inability of the central automated 
     accounting system to separate prior year records from current 
     year activities, understatement of Trust Fund operating 
     expenses and assets, and unsatisfactory control over a wire 
     transfer system.''
       These two examples are illustrative of the serious 
     financial management problems that persist in the Department 
     of Transportation, and we would strongly urge that the 
     Subcommittee reconsider lifting the $1 million cap so that 
     proper audits can be conducted at DOT.
       We appreciate your consideration of our request, and would 
     look forward to meeting with you and your staff to discuss 
     this issue.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    James A. Kanz.
                                  ____

         National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and 
           Treasurers,
                                                    June 15, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Carr,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to respectfully request 
     that you consider removing the $1 million limitation on 
     expenditures that the FY 1995 Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations bill places on 
     implementation of the CFO Act. Our association 
     enthusiastically supported passage of the CFO Act. We support 
     the CFO Act, because--as was stated in a recent report issued 
     to accompany the Vice President's National Performance 
     Review, entitled Improving Federal Financial Management--``. 
     . . better financial management is necessary to give the 
     President, Congress, and other policymakers an accurate 
     picture of the federal budget when they make broad policy 
     decisions and to show Americans that their money is managed 
     well.''
       A key provision of the CFO Act calls for audited financial 
     statements for all trust funds, revolving funds, and 
     substantial commercial activities, as well as for a pilot 
     program encompassing 10 departments and agencies. The Office 
     of Management and Budget's 1993 Federal Financial Management 
     Status Report and 5-year Plan notes that ``. . . audited 
     financial statements are yielding information that is highly 
     beneficial.'' The report notes a number of instances in which 
     audited financial statements have enabled federal agencies to 
     identify financial systems weaknesses that could otherwise 
     have gone undisclosed. These weaknesses include:
       Inaccurate inventory records that resulted in excess 
     inventory purchases valued at more than $100 million;
       Underutilized user fee systems that resulted in the 
     unnecessary use of over $30 million of appropriated funds;
       Deficiencies in deobligation systems that permitted the 
     agency system to record overstated obligations by $40 
     million; and
       Inadequate accounting controls that resulted in failure to 
     bill non-Federal entities for loan installments totaling more 
     than $30 million.
       Further underscoring the value of audited financial 
     statements, Comptroller General Charles Bowsher said last 
     Fall that yearly audits of the agencies responsible for 95 
     percent of federal assets and outlays would be a costly but 
     important step. In an address before the American Institute 
     of Certified Public Accountants, he said ``these are big 
     jobs, but they're doable, and they should be done. . . . I 
     think you've got to invest before you get savings.''
       I respectfully submit that an investment of $1 million, or 
     one-fortieth of the Transportation OIG's appropriation, is 
     not a sufficient investment in this important method of 
     improving financial management. It would appear that the $3.6 
     million requested last year would more realistically enable 
     the OIG to comply with the provisions of the CFO Act.
       On behalf of the National Association of State Auditors, 
     Comptrollers and Treasurers, I want to thank you for 
     considering my comments on this matter. Should you have any 
     questions regarding these comments, I ask that you contact 
     Helena Sims, Director of our Washington Office at (202) 624-
     5451.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert D. Luth,
         State Accounting Administrator State of Nebraska, and 
           Chairman, NASACT Task force on Improving Federal 
           Financial Management.
                                  ____

                                             American Institute of


                                  Certified Public Accountants

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Carr,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Institute of Certified 
     Public Accountants (AICPA) is the national professional 
     association that with more than 314,000 CPAs in public 
     practice, industry, government, and education. The AICPA, 
     through the efforts of volunteer members, is devoted to 
     developing standards for audits and other services by CPAs, 
     providing educational guidance materials to its members, 
     administering the Uniform CPA Examination, and monitoring and 
     enforcing compliance with the profession's technical and 
     ethical standards. All of these activities are undertaken 
     with the objective of assisting our members in their efforts 
     to serve the public interest.
       We have long had an interest in the Chief Financial 
     Officers Act and believe we have contributed to influencing 
     Congress' enactment of it. I am writing to urge you and your 
     colleagues to delete the cap on funding to implement the 
     Chief Financial Officers Act in the Department of 
     Transportation Appropriations legislation H.R. 4556. It is 
     our understanding that a simple removal of the cap on the 
     amount of funds DOT could allocate would allow the agency to 
     employ adequate funds to implement the requirements of the 
     CFO Act. We believe such a funding shift will untie the 
     Department's hands in determining which audits should be 
     conducted.
       The CFO Act is the first effort by the Congress to bring 
     discipline and critical management information to the 
     government policy making process. Without the benefits the 
     act can provide being made available to the DOT, OMB and the 
     Congress, it is difficult to see how long term savings and 
     efficiencies can be instituted that can be preventative in 
     nature rather than curative. We urge you to consider the 
     wisdom of removing the caps and let the Department proceed to 
     adequately fund the implementation of CFO Act.
       We call your attention to the High Risk Areas for the 
     Department of Transportation that are listed in the 1994 
     Budget. These areas highlight the need for adequate funding 
     to achieve the objectives of the CFO.
       Representatives of the AICPA will gladly meet with you to 
     discuss this further, if you wish.
           Sincerely,

                                       J. Thomas Higginbotham,

                                     Vice President, Congressional
                                            and Political Affairs.

                                          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Investment to correct 
                                                                                           high risk area (in   
                                                                                          thousands of dollars) 
           High risk area               Progress to date and next steps     Assessment -------------------------
                                                                                            1993         1993   
                                                                                          request      enacted  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental financial systems are    DOT is (i) correcting immediate                2        6,213        3,668
 numerous, fragmented, and non-        problems in accounting, personnel,                                       
 standard. DOT financial systems       payroll, and procurement systems;                                        
 process over $30B in outlays          (ii) establishing standards and                                          
 annually. At risk: assurance that     developing a strategic systems                                           
 funds are being accounted for in an   plan for future modernization; and                                       
 accurate, timely, and useful          (iii) fully implementing an                                              
 fashion.                              integrated systems environment. In                                       
                                       1992, DOT implemented its DAFIS                                          
                                       core accounting system at the                                            
                                       Maritime Administration--DAFIS is                                        
                                       now installed in 7 out of 10                                             
                                       offices and administrations; and                                         
                                       completed the conceptual design                                          
                                       plan for an Integrated Personnel/                                        
                                       Payroll System (IPPS). Significant                                       
                                       progress was reported in the 1993                                        
                                       budget because the DAFIS                                                 
                                       implementations were accomplishing                                       
                                       significant consolidation of core                                        
                                       accounting system support.                                               
                                       However, some accounting                                                 
                                       weaknesses in DAFIS remain, and                                          
                                       significant work on longer-term                                          
                                       strategies and plans for                                                 
                                       integrating subsidiary systems and                                       
                                       providing more useful cost                                               
                                       information has been delayed due                                         
                                       to Congress' cuts in the                                                 
                                       President's 1993 request. Next                                           
                                       steps: Complete (i) installation                                         
                                       of DAFIS for remaining three                                             
                                       offices by July 1993, and (ii)                                           
                                       detailed design for IPPS during                                          
                                       1993. Implementation of IPPS and                                         
                                       other systems enhancements will                                          
                                       require resources in 1994.                                               
Federal Transit Administration        FTA must improve oversight of                  2       24,977       28,368
 (FTA): Inadequate grants management   grantees' adherence to Federal                                           
 oversight. At risk: FTA over $35B     requirements. In 1992, FTA: (i)                                          
 in active grants. At risk: $300-      received additional staff support                                        
 500M.                                 (31 FTEs); and (ii) implemented                                          
                                       recommendations of the                                                   
                                       Administrator's Task Force Report                                        
                                       on program management oversight.                                         
                                       These recommendations included (i)                                       
                                       a risk assessment for early                                              
                                       identification of problem grantees                                       
                                       needing assistance and closer                                            
                                       monitoring, (ii) a more                                                  
                                       comprehensive Triennial Review                                           
                                       process, and (iii) targeting of                                          
                                       contractor support funds for                                             
                                       oversight activities. FTA is also                                        
                                       working to revise audit guidance                                         
                                       to comply with Federal                                                   
                                       requirements. FTA has already                                            
                                       taken short term steps to separate                                       
                                       project oversight from program                                           
                                       management activities. Additional                                        
                                       resources provided by Congress in                                        
                                       1993 will be used to fund new                                            
                                       contractor support activities.                                           
                                       Next steps: During 1993, FTA will                                        
                                       (i) continue organizational and                                          
                                       functional changes to focus on and                                       
                                       improve program oversight; (ii)                                          
                                       increase the use of funds to hire                                        
                                       contractors to perform                                                   
                                       procurement, management,                                                 
                                       financial, and safety reviews and                                        
                                       audits; (iii) work with OMB to                                           
                                       improve audit guidance; and (iv)                                         
                                       recruit appropriate oversight                                            
                                       staff. Funds will be required in                                         
                                       1994 to provide staffing and                                             
                                       contractor support in the                                                
                                       discretionary and formula grant                                          
                                       programs.                                                                
Federal Aviation Administration:      FAA has developed in internal                  2        5,500        5,500
 major systems acquisition             management control plan to                                               
 procedures inadequate. FAA            identify and focus on major                                              
 procurement plans are estimated at    acquisition weaknesses, and an                                           
 $8.2B over the next 15 years. At      acquisition plan policy which                                            
 risk: increased costs because of      includes provisions for contract                                         
 poor contract administration.         award, administration,                                                   
                                       modification, and approved by                                            
                                       senior management. Program offices                                       
                                       must now justify and validate                                            
                                       requirement needs at four                                                
                                       successive phases from concept to                                        
                                       production. FAA has also                                                 
                                       organizationally separated                                               
                                       acquisition review and oversight                                         
                                       from acquisition operations. Next                                        
                                       steps: DOT will conduct a                                                
                                       Procurement Management Review of                                         
                                       FAA contract administration                                              
                                       activities and contract                                                  
                                       modifications. Mission needs                                             
                                       statements will be improved to                                           
                                       include appropriate quantitative,                                        
                                       analytical support by implementing                                       
                                       a structured mission analysis                                            
                                       process which will be closely tied                                       
                                       to the budget process. Mission                                           
                                       needs will be revalidated                                                
                                       throughout the life cycle,                                               
                                       operations requirements will be                                          
                                       developed, and improvements in                                           
                                       performance resulting from                                               
                                       acquisitions will be measured.                                           
                                       Acquisition policies will be                                             
                                       revised and updated. Requirements                                        
                                       determination, specification                                             
                                       development, and pre-production                                          
                                       testing processes will be improved                                       
                                       through formation of Quality                                             
                                       Action Teams. Additional training                                        
                                       will be implemented, including a                                         
                                       20-week course for some project                                          
                                       managers. Existing funds will be                                         
                                       used to finance corrective actions.                                      
U.S. Coast Guard: major systems       In 1992, USCG conducted internal               2           15           15
 acquisition procedures inadequate.    management control reviews on                                            
 USCG procurement plans are            major systems acquisitions. These                                        
 estimated at $1.5B over the next 5    found that improvements are needed                                       
 years. At risk: increased costs       to protect source selection                                              
 because of poor contract              information and improve invoice                                          
 administration.                       processing. Mission justification                                        
                                       now includes detailed cost                                               
                                       estimates that are adequately                                            
                                       supported and include all costs.                                         
                                       Hands-on training in procurement                                         
                                       management reviews and                                                   
                                       accountability is being improved.                                        
                                       Next steps: In 1993, continue to                                         
                                       improve the mission analysis and                                         
                                       mission needs process (closely                                           
                                       tied to the budget process), both                                        
                                       at USCG and DOT. Mission needs                                           
                                       will be revalidated through                                              
                                       acquisition life cycle, and                                              
                                       improvements in performance                                              
                                       resulting from acquisitions will                                         
                                       be measured through a structured                                         
                                       process every year. Policy will be                                       
                                       updated and revised as needed, and                                       
                                       a system for correcting                                                  
                                       procurement errors will be                                               
                                       developed. Program managers will                                         
                                       continue to be trained at the                                            
                                       Defense System Management College,                                       
                                       and Warrant Officers assigned to                                         
                                       field units with oversight                                               
                                       responsibilities. A followup                                             
                                       system to track procurement                                              
                                       deficiency corrective actions will                                       
                                       be developed.                                                            
Federal Aviation Administration:      The FAA must (i) improve management            A  ...........  ...........
 Inadequate management of spare        of spare parts at field                                                  
 parts at field activities. At risk:   activities; (ii) reduce inventory                                        
 $130.7M of spare parts at field       holding costs; (iii) take timely                                         
 facilities.                           disposition action on excess and                                         
                                       inactive materials; and (iv)                                             
                                       centralize inventory management.                                         
                                       FAA has issued revised guidelines                                        
                                       to improve inventory management                                          
                                       and has developed a supply site                                          
                                       management plan. Next steps:                                             
                                       Planned actions are to complete a                                        
                                       phased inventory of field stock                                          
                                       exceeding the threshold cost.                                            
                                       Funds will be required in 1994 to                                        
                                       complete implementation of the new                                       
                                       inventory system and to conduct                                          
                                       inspections of field facilities.                                         
                                       Added to the high risk list.                                             
U.S. Coast Guard: Inadequate          The Coast Guard needs to implement             A  ...........  ...........
 logistical support for spare parts    internal control objectives and                                          
 at field activities. At risk: $93.6   techniques sufficient to minimize                                        
 M of a $346.7 M on-hand inventory     its inventory cost for spare                                             
 representing excess inventory.        parts. Necessary corrective                                              
                                       actions include implementation of                                        
                                       the new Aeronautical Maintenance                                         
                                       Management Information System                                            
                                       (AMMIS). AMMIS is intended to                                            
                                       improve planning, tracking and                                           
                                       according capability. Added to the                                       
                                       high risk list. Next steps:                                              
                                       Introduction of the AMMIS system                                         
                                       is scheduled for 1993 with full                                          
                                       implementation in 1995. Funds will                                       
                                       be required in 1994 to (i) provide                                       
                                       advanced logistics management                                            
                                       training, (ii) finance AMMIS, and                                        
                                       (iii) complete the reorganization                                        
                                       of the warehouse.                                                        
Department: Inadequate Department     Security efforts have not kept pace            A  ...........  ...........
 Information System Security (ISS).    with improved technology to                                              
 Annual investment of nearly $3B for   safeguard information systems.                                           
 information technology.               Security improvements are needed                                         
                                       to safeguard information systems                                         
                                       for grant management, funds                                              
                                       control, and management and safety                                       
                                       of the Department's operational                                          
                                       systems (e.g., Air Traffic Control                                       
                                       Systems). DOT must develop a                                             
                                       comprehensive security plan, and                                         
                                       revise existing policy, issue                                            
                                       procedural guidance, and perform                                         
                                       security oversight reviews. Added                                        
                                       to the high risk list. Next steps:                                       
                                       (i) Completed revisions to                                               
                                       existing policy statements (March                                        
                                       1993); (ii) complete four                                                
                                       oversight reviews (September                                             
                                       1993); and (iii) issue guidance in                                       
                                       support of ISS policy (September                                         
                                       1995). Funds will be required in                                         
                                       1994 for staffing and training.                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Investment to correct 
                                                                                           high risk area (in   
                                                                                         thousands of dollars)  
           High risk area               Progress to date and next steps     Assessment -------------------------
                                                                                            1993         1993   
                                                                                          request      enacted  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Revenue Service (IRS):       Since IRS collections have not kept            2       16,217       15,641
 strategy for collecting and           pace with the growth in unpaid tax                                       
 resolving Accounts Receivable (AR)    debt, significant Federal revenues                                       
 is inadequate. IRS Accounts           may be lost. In 1992, the IRS: (i)                                       
 Receivable $71B (current estimated    set targets for AR and other                                             
 collectible value is $28B).           functions and began quarterly                                            
 Collections totaled $24B in 1992.     performance reviews with OMB and                                         
 At risk: at least $28B in             Treasury; (ii) eliminated                                                
 collectible receivables; $43B         duplicate penalties from AR and                                          
 estimated allowance for doubtful      initiated a pilot to eliminate                                           
 accounts needs to be reconciled and   erroneous accounts; (iii) began a                                        
 closed out.                           feasibility study of the use of                                          
                                       private collection agencies to                                           
                                       resolve unworked, lower priority                                         
                                       accounts; (iv) undertook a series                                        
                                       of efforts to accelerate contact                                         
                                       with delinquent taxpayers,                                               
                                       including an accelerated notice                                          
                                       pilot; and (v) modified its                                              
                                       installment agreement and offer-in-                                      
                                       compromise policies to permit more                                       
                                       flexibility and increased                                                
                                       collections. During the year,                                            
                                       installment agreements have                                              
                                       increased 47%; collections from                                          
                                       installment agreement have                                               
                                       increased 24%; and offers-in-                                            
                                       compromise submitted by taxpayers                                        
                                       have increased twofold. Next                                             
                                       steps: Accounts Receivable will be                                       
                                       elevated to be an integral part of                                       
                                       the Servicewide Compliance 2000                                          
                                       Strategy and related plan. In                                            
                                       1993, the IRS will conduct a                                             
                                       private collection agency pilot                                          
                                       and expand nationwide its pilot to                                       
                                       eliminate erroneous accounts from                                        
                                       AR. For 1994, if the private                                             
                                       collection agency pilot proves                                           
                                       feasible, legislation is needed to                                       
                                       fund referral of unworked, low-                                          
                                       priority cases to private                                                
                                       collection agencies out of a                                             
                                       portion of the proceeds. Continued                                       
                                       funding of AR improvements will be                                       
                                       needed in 1994.                                                          
Customs Service: Inadequate           A new core accounting system. Asset            2        1,668            0
 collecting/accounting systems for     Information Management System                                            
 revenues on imports $20 billion       (AIMS), was implemented to provide                                       
 collected annually. At risk:          general ledger, funds control, and                                       
 control of revenues, including        budget execution capabilities.                                           
 tracking of $880 M in posted          Interfaces between AIMS and                                              
 receivables.                          Customs administrative and revenue                                       
                                       subsystems will provide improved                                         
                                       data accuracy. Customs still needs                                       
                                       to improve accounting for                                                
                                       protested amounts and revenue                                            
                                       collection--through the Automated                                        
                                       Commercial System (ACS) and its                                          
                                       interfaces with AIMS. A system for                                       
                                       mail entry of collections was                                            
                                       implemented in 1992 to enhance                                           
                                       control over receivables.                                                
                                       Congress' cut of the President's                                         
                                       1993 request will delay                                                  
                                       improvements to ACS, and                                                 
                                       interfaces between Customs                                               
                                       subsystem and AIMS. Next steps:                                          
                                       Customs reallocated $4.5M from                                           
                                       other activities to (i) continue                                         
                                       to redesign of the protest module                                        
                                       in ACS; (ii) continue work on ACS                                        
                                       and its interfaces with AIMS                                             
                                       (needed to support accountability                                        
                                       of revenues); (iii) begin work on                                        
                                       the cost accumulation capabilities                                       
                                       in phase (ii) of AIMS; and (iv)                                          
                                       improve data integrity through                                           
                                       efforts to develop interfaces                                            
                                       between Customs subsystems and                                           
                                       AIMS. Additional resources will be                                       
                                       needed for this effort in 1994.                                          
Departmental Financial system         Treasury has improved system                   2          170          170
 coordination is inadequate.           oversight by establishing the                                            
 Treasury is investing $81 million     Office of Financial Systems and                                          
 in financial systems development in   Reports, and issuing Treasury                                            
 1993. At risk: systems developed by   Directive 32-02, ``Approval of                                           
 bureaus may not support               Financial Management System,''                                           
 departmental financial management     which requires departmental review                                       
 initiatives.                          and approval for systems. Efforts                                        
                                       are underway to implement the                                            
                                       recommendations of the department-                                       
                                       wide studies on integration of                                           
                                       financial systems and financial                                          
                                       report filing procedures. The                                            
                                       Financial Management Systems                                             
                                       Advisory Committee was established                                       
                                       to ensure consistency in the                                             
                                       design and enhancement of                                                
                                       financial management systems. This                                       
                                       committee will initiate efforts to                                       
                                       determine department-wide                                                
                                       financial management system                                              
                                       requirements. The first three                                            
                                       priorities will be travel,                                               
                                       procurement, and revenue systems.                                        
                                       Treasury continues to make                                               
                                       progress in further reducing the                                         
                                       variety and number of financial                                          
                                       management systems by implementing                                       
                                       the Federal Financial System (FFS)                                       
                                       software at three additional                                             
                                       bureaus (IRS, USCS, and FLETC).                                          
                                       Current efforts will result in                                           
                                       half of the bureaus using FFS by                                         
                                       1993 (accounting for 83% of                                              
                                       Treasury's total budget                                                  
                                       authority). Next steps: Treasury                                         
                                       (i) is allocating additional funds                                       
                                       ($320,000) to this project in                                            
                                       1993, (ii) will oversee                                                  
                                       installation of FFS software at                                          
                                       ATF, and (iii) will develop plans                                        
                                       for establishing a department-wide                                       
                                       financial management system.                                             
                                       Additional resources will be                                             
                                       required in 1994 to improve                                              
                                       systems oversight.                                                       
Customs, Operations and Maintenance   Customs identified problems                    A  ...........  ...........
 Account, Air and Marine               accounting for prior year                                                
 Interdiction Programs lack adequate   unobligated balances in this                                             
 internal controls. Interdiction       program. Corrective actions to                                           
 Operations and Maintenance accounts   address these problems are                                               
 in 1993 totalled $138M. At risk:      underway. Last summer, Customs                                           
 $26-$50M dollars in unobligated       hired the accounting firm of KPMG                                        
 balances.                             Peat Marwick to review the account                                       
                                       balances of the air/marine                                               
                                       program, and they are now                                                
                                       completing their work.                                                   
                                       Recommendations of Treasury's own                                        
                                       study team will be implemented to                                        
                                       improve the account's internal                                           
                                       controls. Finally, the Inspector                                         
                                       General will review results of                                           
                                       both efforts. ADDED TO HIGH RISK                                         
                                       LIST.                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The 250,000-member National Taxpayers 
     Union strongly supports the Conyers/Clinger Amendment that 
     would remove a $1 million cap on the amount the Department of 
     Transportation's Inspector General may spend on auditing 
     financial statements as required by the Chief Financial 
     Officers Act.
       It is important to note that this amendment would not 
     increase spending. The appropriation for the Inspector 
     General would remain at $40 million. This amendment would 
     provide the flexibility for the Inspector General to comply 
     with the Chief Financial Officers Act.
       As an organization that represents the interests of the 
     American people in insuring the taxpayers money is being 
     spent efficiently, we have long understood the importance of 
     sound financial management and auditing practices to achieve 
     a more efficient Federal government. A vote for this 
     amendment is a pro-taxpayer vote, and a vote for restoring 
     strong financial management to the Department of 
     Transportation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Davied Keating,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                   The Council for


                                     Excellence in Government,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Council for Excellence in Government 
     would like to express its strong support for the Conyers/
     Clinger Amendment that removes a $1 million cap on the amount 
     the Department of Transportation's Inspector General may 
     spend on auditing financial statements as required by the 
     Chief Financial Officers Act.
       As an organization that continuously works to improve 
     government management and performance, we have long 
     understood the importance of sound financial management and 
     auditing practices to achieving these goals.
           Sinerely,
                                                Patricia McGinnis,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The 600,000 members of the Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) strongly endorse 
     the Conyers-Clinger Amendment to strike the $1 million 
     restriction on spending by the Department of Transportation's 
     (DOT) Inspector General on auditing financial statements as 
     required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFOs 
     Act).
       We appreciate your continued leadership in furthering the 
     objectives of the CFOs Act. As a Grace Commission 
     recommendation, the establishment of CFOs was a critical step 
     in bringing sound financial management and auditing practices 
     to the federal government.
       A vote for this amendment will help fulfill the promise of 
     the CFOs Act. Taxpayers will be able to determine just how 
     their hard-earned money is being spent at the Transportation 
     Department. CCAGW will consider this vote as part of our 1994 
     Congressional ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a critical vote. The Conyers-Clinger amendment 
presents the body with a chance to take an effective, meaningful stand 
against waste, fraud, and abuse. The appropriations bill we are 
debating today includes a cap on the use of funds to implement the 
Chief Financial Officers Act at the Department of Transportation. You 
are likely to hear from the defenders of this measure an argument 
repeated nowhere else in the Federal Government. Namely, that sound 
financial management practices simply do not matter.
  Let me read from the Appropriation Committee's report

       While providing a modest level of funding, the committee is 
     still not convinced that there will be any significant 
     benefit to the DOT from the activity, while its costs 
     continue to reduce funding for other audit activities. The 
     committee retains some serious reservations about the need 
     for full implementation of the CFO legislation within this 
     particular department.

  I find this statement simply amazing. Nowhere else, not in the 
private sector, not in State and local governments, and, I hope, 
nowhere else in Congress, could you find the argument that sound 
financial management practices provide no significant benefits.
  In their review of the Department of Transportation's financial 
management activities, the Office of Management and Budget has reported 
to Congress two examples which are illustrative of the serious 
financial management problems that persist at the Transportation 
Department. Their report states that the highway trust fund audit 
identifies the lack of documentation for an estimated liability of 
approximately $935 million. Furthermore, the FAA audit disclosed that a 
lack of automated detail records and the inability to use manual 
records prevented the auditors from even expressing an opinion on FAA's 
financial statements. Their report on internal controls indicated at 
least five material weaknesses. It is anybody's guess how many problems 
would have been uncovered if all of DOT'S financial statements had been 
audited as currently required by law.
  While these accounting issues are not the most exciting subjects 
debated on this House floor, I can assure you that theses audit reports 
identify the same types of financial weaknesses that the Federal 
Government would never tolerate from publicly held companies, yet, we 
seem consistently willing to put off efforts to solve these problems 
when they arise in the Federal Government.
  In my view, the CFO's Act thus far has paid big dividends. The 
Comptroller General of the United States, Charles Bowsher, recently 
testified on the benefits associated with full implementation of 
financial management reforms. He stated, ``Since its enactment in late 
1990, we have seen progress in directly confronting serious financial 
management weaknesses. The act's requirement for producing annual 
audited financial statements--something this bill would virtually 
eliminate at DOT, I might add--is demonstrating its value in several 
important ways.
  First, a much clearer picture is emerging of the Government's true 
financial condition. Financial statement audits have provided a much 
more realistic portrayal of the costs the Government can expect to 
incur as a result of its activities. The audits have highlighted 
billions of dollars in liabilities and potential losses to the 
Government. This is the kind of information needed to make critical 
decisions on budgeting, tax policies, and the overall direction of 
Government programs.
  Second, according to GAO, financial statements have brought much 
needed discipline in pinpointing waste, mismanagement, and possible 
illegal acts and in highlighting the gaps in safeguarding the 
Government's assets.

  Third, CFO Act financial audits have identified actual and potential 
savings of hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, the Department 
of Defense identified over $204 million in potential savings from 
duplicate invoices, duplicate payments, and avoided interest.
  Finally, the financial audits, according to GAO, are also confirming 
just how little confidence the Congress and program managers can place 
in the information they now receive. GAO has identified hundreds of 
billions of dollars of accounting errors--mistakes and omissions that 
can render information provided to the Congress virtually useless.
  These are the benefits that could be received by full implementation 
of the CFO's Act requirements for audited financial statements. Yet, 
they are benefits that may never be realized at the Department of 
Transportation unless the Conyers/Clinger amendment is adopted.
  How can we argue that Transportation, unlike every other department 
within the Federal Government, is clear of fraud, waste, and abuse. 
Would it not be important to my colleagues on the Transportation 
Appropriation Subcommittee to know whether the financial data being 
provided to you by the Department is correct. And how can you now argue 
that it is correct when GAO is finding billions of dollars in mistakes 
and omissions at every other agency in the Federal Government.
  I implore my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the Conyers-Clinger 
amendment and allow the Department of Transportation to improve their 
management systems, to bring soundness and stability to the management 
of their Department.
  I also urge my friends on the Appropriations Committee to learn more 
about the benefits associated with the financial management reforms 
required by the CFO's Act. Universally, agency CFO's and inspectors 
general have reported that the process of preparing and auditing 
financial statements brings much needed rigor to accounting and 
financial reporting and highlights where the real problems are. Sit 
down with the financial managers of your departments and review their 
financial statements. Understand that the weaknesses identified in the 
financial statement audits result in massive waste, fraud, and abuse 
and eventually in fewer program dollars being received by program 
beneficiaries.
  Finally, the inspector general community, especially the inspector 
general at the Department of Transportation, needs to take the 
congressionally mandated requirements of the CFO's Act seriously. The 
act mandates that financial statements shall be audited and the results 
of those audits reported to Congress. An inspector general who cannot 
perform this function is simply not abiding by the law, which is 
completely abhorrent to the principles and goals of the Inspector 
General Act.
  In closing, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Conyers/Clinger amendment. 
Bring sound financial management policies into the Department of 
Transportation.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in the spirit of compromise.
  (Mr. CARR of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to accept the 
amendment. I would like to indicate that we do have some problems with 
the amendment. We fundamentally do not agree with it. However, in the 
interest of comity between ourselves and the authorizing chairman and 
ranking member, both outstanding leaders of our country, I think that 
we could accept this amendment and continue working with the Committee 
on Government Operations to try to fix what we see as some of the 
deficiencies of the CFO Act, as it applies to the Department of 
Transportation.
  I would like to explain the rationale for the committee 
recommendation further because there have been some misconceptions and 
misrepresentations made about what the reported bill actually does and 
does not do to implement the CFO legislation.
  First, the Members should know that this is not a new limitation. The 
limitation in this bill is the same as we have had in place for 2 
years.
  The reported bill includes $1,000,000 for CFO activities. That is the 
amount requested in the President's budget. We included all funding 
requested by the administration. It is the same amount as provided for 
fiscal years 1993 and 1994, and almost the same as provided for fiscal 
year 1992 ($1,125,000). The bill doesn't cut existing activities--it 
restrains growth in an area where the benefits are far from clear.
  Most importantly, even with the $1 million limitation in this bill, 
by far, most of the audits required by the CFO Act are being done. 
According to the Department of Transportation, by dollar value, 97.4 
percent of the funds required to be audited by the CFO Act are being 
audited. Removing the limitation would raise CFO funding by 260 
percent, to audit only an additional 2.6 percent of funds. The 
committee's view is that we should not be paying millions more to audit 
small accounts such as the gifts and requests fund of the Maritime 
Administration, which receives less than $50,000 a year, and the Coast 
Guard gift fund. We could end up spending more to audit those funds 
than they even take in during a year. I know the Government Operations 
Committee would like to be able to say that their legislation was fully 
funded, and that all of the required funds are being audited, without 
regard to whether there are indications of financial problems in those 
funds. This has symbolic value. The reported bill was a compromise, and 
allowed the vast majority of dollars to be audited.

  I should also point out that removing the limitation without adding 
funds requires the IG to make $2.6 million in cuts to fund the CFO 
program. This will cause devastating cuts to the IG's auditing work 
force. Our estimate is that 15 percent of the entire audit work force 
will have to be laid off or redirected to finance the CFO financial 
statements. Members should be aware that this amendment will have 
harmful effects on the office of the inspector general.
  As I indicated, in the spirit of compromise I will not oppose the 
gentleman's amendment, and we will try to work with the Government 
Operations Committee and the department to ensure that something 
beneficial results from the additional funding, and that the impact on 
other IG audits and investigations is mitigated as much as possible.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
from Michigan who has done an excellent job in shepherding this bill 
through. Whatever the problems are that linger, even with withdrawing, 
accepting this amendment, I would be delighted to work with the 
gentleman in the future. I again thank him for his cooperation.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to work 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan and my distinguished chairman on the Committee on Government 
Operations. I am delighted that this amendment is being accepted. I 
told the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that I think that our 
implementation and oversight of the CFO Act is perhaps the most 
important work and the most salutary work that our Committee on 
Government Operations is doing.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not produce annual audited 
financial statements, even though the U.S. Government spends $1.5 
trillion each year. This is one of the biggest reasons that our 
Government is so deep in debt.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government requires every large company in 
America, of course, to produce annual audited financial statements, and 
yet the Federal Government itself is incapable of doing so. Mr. 
Chairman, that is a scandal, and it leads to mismanagement and waste.
  To put an end to this scandal, and to see to it that the Federal 
Government finally prepares honest financial reports for Government 
managers and taxpayers, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers 
Act unanimously in both the House and Senate. Mr. Chairman, we have to 
see to it that Congress now provides the necessary support to implement 
the Chief Financial Officers Act.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that we are reaffirming our 
support for the CFO Act with the same unanimity that brought it to us 
in the first instance. Throughout our Government, Mr. Chairman, as of 
now, fiscal responsibility is the exception, rather than the rule. It 
is an afterthought at best. We need the CFO Act to turn this sad 
situation around.
  Today before sundown our Government will lose $1 billion. Tomorrow it 
will lost $1 billion. We will lose over $1 billion every day the 
Government is in business this year. To cover up the poor fiscal 
management, Federal spending is expected to grow every year between now 
and the end of the century.
  Today Federal spending is $1,484 billion a year. Next year it will be 
$1,509 billion. In the next 3 years, it will go up $1.6 trillion, $1.7 
and finally $1.8 trillion in 1998. Yet the people who have been 
opposing the CFO Act, some in the bureaucracy, some in the trenches, 
say, ``We simply cannot afford to maintain sound accounting 
practices.'' If they have their way, we will not know where the $1.8 
trillion is going.
  Already, Mr. Chairman, many Federal agencies we have seen on the 
Committee on Government Operations and on my Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Consumer, and Monetary Affairs, many agencies are having trouble 
implementing the CFO Act because they have not sufficient support to do 
it. I recently met with one official from a Federal agency who told me 
it would take 7 years before his agency can produce audited financial 
statements.
  Imagine if we told the IRS that we could not figure out our income 
because of bad accounting practices, but that we would get around to it 
in 7 years. Do we think the IRS would give us 7 years to put our fiscal 
house in order? Of course not. They would slap us with a hefty fine on 
top of back taxes and add interest to that.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not have to wait years to get honest 
financial statements from the Federal Government, but unless we were to 
pass this amendment, we would have to wait years. When I worked in the 
White House, I was amazed to learn that the President, the Nation's 
Chief Executive, cannot get an honest financial statement from the 
Government he supposedly runs. Each agency now keeps its books 
differently, so that soft numbers we do have cannot be consolidated 
into a single financial report.
  If the Department of Transportation, covered by this bill, or any 
other single agency did not comply with the CFO Act, then we would 
never have a Government-wide financial statement. The CFO Act would be 
gutted. That is just what the opponent of fiscal responsibility want.
  Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted that we will unanimously 
approve the Clinger-Conyers amendment, and restate the strong 
bipartisan support of Congress for immediate implementation of the CFO 
Act.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment to H.R. 4556, the Transportation appropriations 
bill, offered by Chairman Conyers and the ranking minority member Mr. 
Clinger. This amendment would lift the limitation that has in the past 
restricted the ability of the Transportation inspector general to meet 
all of his responsibilities under the 1990 CFO Act. I would like to 
commend the sponsors of this amendment for the diligence they have 
shown on this issue.
  The people of my district are tired of Government waste and this 
amendment is a solid step in keeping us informed so that we can keep 
our constituents informed. Therefore we here in Congress must send a 
message to the taxpayers that we are in favor of sound economic 
decisions concerning our Government finances. The Department of 
Transportation has many management weaknesses such as inaccurate 
inventory records, underutilized user fees, deficiencies in 
deobligation systems, and inadequate accounting controls. The Chief 
Executive Officer Act of 1990 was approved by Congress as a way to 
bring about better accountability to the executive branch. This 
amendment would allow that accountability to be measured. The 
Transportation Department is the only department prohibited from 
complying with the CFO Act because of a funding restriction despite 
widespread financial management problems.
  Office of Management and Budget Director Leon Panetta supports the 
removal of the $1 million restriction. Along with the Clinton 
administration, the General Accounting Office, the Financial Executives 
Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National 
Taxpayers Union.
  I support this amendment because it does not add any money to the 
appropriations bill but rather saves taxpayer dollars by allowing the 
DOT's inspector general to fully comply with the CFO Act. It will hold 
the DOT more accountable by allowing sound and complete audits of the 
agencies within. Friends, we face many tough choices in dealing with 
our budget crisis. Members of this body may disagree on many of the 
choices we face, but we all agree that we need to eliminate waste and 
mismanagement.
  Voting yes to the Conyers-Clinger amendment is one more step in the 
right direction in saving taxpayers' dollars and to holding executive 
agencies more accountable ensuring reliable performance of the services 
they were meant to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, with the cap on expenditures by the 
Transportation Department inspector general now lifted, the IG should 
now fully comply with the Chief Financial Officers Act. Under this 
Federal statute, the DOT inspector general must perform financial 
statement audits on all trust funds, revolving funds and commercial 
activities each year. Furthermore, she must report on the results of 
her audits to the Secretary of Transportation no later than June 30 of 
each year.
  In the past, the Transportation Department inspector general was 
allowed to audit portions of only four of the nine financial statements 
prepared at DOT. That will no longer be acceptable. For the fiscal year 
1994 financial statements, the IG will be expected to perform complete 
audits on each of the nine financial statements prepared at the 
Transportation Department. We are not asking DOT to do anything that we 
have not required publicly held corporations and State and local 
governments to do for years. Those organizations have come to recognize 
the benefits associated with sound financial management practices. It 
is time that everyone in the Federal Government perform these audits as 
well.
  The vote today should be a sign to all executive branch officials 
that the U.S. Congress is serious when it tells agencies to reform 
their management practices. The law of the land now calls for financial 
management reform. There should be no excuses now for the Department of 
Transportation, or any other agency, not to be in compliance with the 
Chief Financial Officers Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION

                       BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $3,350,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902), 
     $37,392,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                     INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b), and not to exceed $1,500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $43,495,000: Provided, 
     That joint board members and cooperating state commissioners 
     may use government transportation requests when traveling in 
     connection with their official duties as such: Provided 
     further, That $8,300,000 in fees collected in fiscal year 
     1995 by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 9701 shall be made available to this appropriation in 
     fiscal year 1995.


                    amendment offered by mr. kasich

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kasich: Page 34, strike line 17 
     and all that follows through ``That'' on line 25.

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor again for the second 
year in a row in a truly bipartisan effort to try to consolidate, 
eliminate, a bureaucracy that was created in the 1800's, most of whose 
regulatory authority and regulatory need was eliminated in the 1980's 
by then-President Jimmy Carter.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of criticism of Jimmy Carter over the 
years, and at times I chimed in, but I will tell the Members that 
President Carter did lead the way in a number of areas, specifically in 
deregulation of a lot of our transportation activity.
  What the Interstate Commerce Commission was created for in the 1800's 
was basically to deal with railroads. It then had accelerated 
jurisdiction in the area of trucking and moving and busing, but what 
has happened is, since the period of the 1980's we have passed a number 
of bills through this Congress to deregulate many of the activities 
that the ICC was created to regulate.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things we did was, in 1980 we passed the 
Staggers Act that began to deregulate the operation of the railroads. 
We also, of course, in 1980 passed the Motor Carrier Act. The Motor 
Carrier Act deregulated the trucking industry. We essentially have in 
the ICC now an operation that does nothing more than to produce filings 
of trucking companies, no more, in the area of regulation.
  Also in 1980 the Household Goods Transportation Act was passed that 
deregulated the moving industry, and in 1982 we passed the Bus 
Regulation Reform Act that regulated the busing industry. The only real 
activity that goes on in the Interstate Commerce Commission anymore 
essentially has to do with the railroads. That amount of regulation 
basically comprises about 37 percent of the operations.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we trying to do here? What we are essentially 
trying to do is to take a bureaucracy that was created in the 1800's, 
most of whose functions have been eliminated because of the 
deregulation of many of the activities that they were in charge of 
regulating. We then want to take the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
its bureaucracy and fold it into the Department of Transportation.
  There was a similar effort done like this, proposed by Jimmy Carter, 
to fold the Civil Aeronautics Board into the Department of 
Transportation. This is somewhat consistent with that effort. What we 
do here, Mr. Chairman, is we try to zero out the funding of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission.
  In the Committee on Public Works and Transportation there is a bill 
that empowers the President of the United States and the Department of 
Transportation, the head of the Department of Transportation, to decide 
which of the functions of the ICC really should be retained within the 
Department of Transportation.
  What we are essentially saying is take this big bureaucracy of 600 
people, zero it out, ultimately transfer the functions of the ICC into 
the Department of Transportation, and let the President and the 
Secretary of Transportation tell us which of those functions are really 
important. Then they can determine how many employees they want to have 
actually carrying out those functions, but they would be held to the 
ceiling levels created in the Department of Transportation, so we would 
save money.
  Mr. Chairman, some of the argument is that this would not save money. 
Mr. Chairman, I come here today with a Congressional Budget Office 
estimate.
  I want to go back to a speech that President Clinton gave at the 
State of the Union in February 1993. Members might remember when the 
President stood up here and said:

       I will point out that the Congressional Budget Office is 
     normally more conservative about what was going to happen and 
     closer to right than previous Presidents have been.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. Chairman, I did this, used CBO estimates in the 1994 budget so we 
could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers. The 
President himself basically said, the Congressional Budget Office is 
the bible of budget estimates.
  We have asked the Congressional Budget Office for their estimate on 
our proposal. CBO estimates that annual savings in payroll costs and 
related expenses would be about $40 million, but could be as low as $30 
million and as high as $50 million. The fiscal year 1995 savings would 
be about $15 million less because of severance costs.
  Our proposal would save $25 million in the first year by 
consolidating these bureaucracies. Over 5 years we would save somewhere 
in the neighborhood of $150 million, and that is the minimum level, 
$150 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hefley and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kasich was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing is in an orderly 
fashion to take an older bureaucracy, to separate the separate 
bureaucratic nature of that organization, most of whose regulatory 
functions have withered away. We are charging the Secretary of 
Transportation and the President with deciding which of those functions 
still should be carried out. We are allowing them to hire people under 
the ceiling of the Department of Transportation. We will save at least 
$25 million in the first year and somewhere over $150 million over 5 
years. We will have begun to re-invent government. We will have made 
for more efficient process.
  Mr. Chairman, we came very close to winning this amendment last year, 
just a few votes short. Part of the reason I believe we lost is Members 
still did not know what the details are. Most of the Republican side of 
the aisle voted for this. I would say to my Democratic colleagues, I 
have appealed to them over this period of this week to really be for 
some change.
  I have asked them to come to the floor and actually vote for 
something that begins to really re-invent government. I think it is a 
good vote for this whole House. We are going to be able to maintain the 
essential functions of this operation, we will save money, we will 
consolidate bureaucracy, and I think we will be moving in the direction 
that I believe the American people want to move and it represents real 
change.
  Is our proposal perfect? No, no proposal for change is perfect, but 
it gets us on the road to making some significant changes in an 
organization that really does need to be reformed, really needs to be 
eliminated. The functions kept were legitimate. The rest of them, let 
us do away with them. We owe the taxpayers of this country that. I 
think that is what your constituents want. I know it is what mine want.
  I ask for your support on this measure on truly a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to 
this amendment.
  (Mr. CARR of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to strike 
all the funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission from the fiscal 
year Department of Transportation bill. The amendment would, in effect, 
abolish the ICC within a little more than 3 months.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is like a bad dream that comes back 
night after night. The amendment was debated last year and it was 
defeated, not once but twice by this body. We debated the amendment 
first in the fiscal year 1994 DOT appropriations bill. It was defeated. 
We debated the amendment again as part of the Penny-Kasich amendment to 
H.R. 3400, a fiscal year 1994 supplemental and rescissions bill. Again, 
the amendment was defeated. The sponsors' proposal to abolish the ICC 
and to transfer its functions to the DOT is simply a proposal whose 
time has not come. Even the sole Republican ICC Commissioner has said, 
``There is little if anything to be gained by moving the ICC's current 
functions to another government agency.''
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of this amendment raise the flag of 
reinventing government and saving money. They argue that DOT can do 
what the ICC does, only at a lower cost. They cite CBO estimates that 
transferring the ICC to DOT would save $15 million to $45 million in 
the first year, and $30 million to $50 million in subsequent years 
after initial severance costs are paid.
  Mr. Chairman, let us look at the estimates a little closer. CBO's 
estimates assume that all 614 ICC employees would be transferred to 
DOT. The DOT would then reduce its personnel levels through a 
reduction-in-force in order to stay within its personnel ceilings. In 
other words, to achieve the savings estimated by CBO, some 600 people 
would have to be RIF'd at the Department of Transportation at a cost of 
approximately $15 million. Moreover, the CBO analysis assumes that DOT 
would absorb ICC functions without any increase in personnel. Let me 
repeat that. It assumes that the DOT can absorb ICC functions without 
an increase in personnel or capital equipment, I might add, an 
assumption that we just know is flawed. It does not pass the common 
sense test.
  Mr. Chairman, like other Federal agencies, DOT is mandated to reduce 
employment levels by 12 percent by fiscal year 1999. Under H.R. 4556, 
the bill before us, the Department will have approximately 2,400 fewer 
full-time equivalent civilian personnel in fiscal year 1995 than it had 
2 years ago. Making these employment reductions without impairing vital 
transportation safety functions will not be easy. For example, the 
Federal Aviation Administration recently granted buyout authority to 
2,700 employees to avoid having to conduct a reduction-in-force this 
year. Clearly, the Department of Transportation is already working with 
extremely tight personnel levels and it is simply unrealistic to assume 
that it can take over the ICC functions within the existing personnel 
ceilings without cutting back on other essential activities.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to compromise the Coast Guard, it 
is a vote to compromise flight services in this country, it is a vote 
to compromise the ability of the Federal Highway Administration to 
conduct the investments that we want in America.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad idea whose time has not come.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is the first and only time that I will 
disagree with my beloved chairman.
  I hope Members will really take a look at this amendment and 
subsequent amendments that will be proposed to take care of some of the 
problems that our chairman has outlined, including a second amendment, 
I think it is $15 million will be added for severance in trying to ease 
this transfer as far as the employees are concerned.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear on that. The reason our 
first year savings are only $25 million and not $40 million is we have 
a severance package in our proposal that would come after this would be 
adopted.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think that pretty well clears up the 
concern Members may have about some of the employees over at ICC.
  Members of the House, the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, is 
a dinosaur that just absolutely refuses to die. This was an agency that 
had 2,000 employees and is down to 600. Why? Because it does not do 
anything of substance.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to try to explain what the Interstate Commerce 
Commission is. It is the last hangers-on after deregulation has been so 
successful.
  Over the last 2 days, it is amazing to me. I have received a great 
deal of correspondence on this amendment that we offer on the floor 
today. It is very interesting to note that the only opposition I have 
received from off the Hill has been from labor unions. In their 
correspondence, they reiterate the same old tired argument that there 
is some justification for the ICC. But wait a minute. Why are the labor 
unions interested in keeping the ICC?
  After some discussion on this subject, we tried to figure it out, and 
the only thing that we could figure out was first that somehow they 
want to keep rates artificially high, which does not make any sense to 
me since there are so many nonunionized trucking companies operating in 
the United States as compared to 15 years ago.
  The only other reason we came up with, and probably is much more 
important to the unions, is that they hope that in some way, someday, 
there will be a future possibility that the Government would through 
the ICC re-regulate the rates and keep rates artificially high.

                              {time}  1450

  I introduced legislation when I was in the Texas House of 
Representatives to deregulate trucking way back in 1978, and in 1986, I 
introduced, with my good friend and former colleague, Jim Moody, H.R. 
3222, legislation that would have completely deregulated the trucking 
industry and reorganized the Interstate Commerce Commission under the 
DOT.
  I feel as adamant today about this issue as I did 15 years ago.
  Let us look at the reality of the elimination of the ICC. What do 
they do right now as far as trucking is concerned? If you want to go 
into the trucking business or you want to expand your current 
authority, all you have to do is send a piece of paper to the ICC 
requesting formal permission to operate a trucking business. How 
ridiculous. More paperwork for the trucking industry.
  And then when you are in business, every time you want to change your 
rate, you are supposed to send a rate tariff to the ICC. Do you know 
what deregulation has done? It has created a whole new industry called 
rate bureaus. These are the people that collect the rates. You can 
consult with a rate bureau and find what the rates are to haul your 
goods right now without the ICC, an industry that is creating jobs and 
doing a wonderful job of managing the information flow of what the 
rates are out there.
  The ICC does not do anything but collect them.
  Now, some shippers are concerned, and you may have heard from some of 
them, about this rate-filing situation, and where would you file rates? 
You would file rates, if you still have to comply with the law, and I 
would hope that we would repeal such a law, if you have got to do it, 
you can still file your paper with the DOT, and the DOT will take it 
and put it where the ICC does, back in the file box somewhere, in their 
computers or in a warehouse, and it means nothing to anyone. It does 
not do anything.
  In fact, when I first came here, it was interesting to note back in 
the early 1980's that the Interstate Commerce Commission itself did not 
even meet for about 2 years, did not even meet. We were paying 
salaries, and the Commissioners did not even meet. Did the world fall 
apart?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the world did not fall apart because the 
Commission did not meet. The world did not fall apart because the ICC 
went from 2,000 employees to 600.
  We are hanging onto a dinosaur. This very agency is the oldest 
Federal regulatory agency in our Government, and it is time for it to 
crawl into its hole and cover those old bones up and sail off into the 
sunset and be the old dinosaur that it is, and maybe somebody will dig 
them up later on, and we will all lament about the fact that we had the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, that overregulated the trucking 
industry and cost our economy millions and billions of dollars.
  We do not need the ICC. We do not need the ICC. We could put it into 
the DOT, if you want to keep some semblance of regulation, but this is 
a dinosaur that has met its day, and we ought to do away with it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The proponents stand alone. The General Accounting Office is against 
this change. The affected industries are against the change. Consumers 
are against this change. The Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] is 
against this change. The Department of Transportation itself--the 
administration--is against the change and I am against the change.
  You get the impression from the boosters of this amendment that the 
ICC's independence is a result of inadvertence, a mere detail--
something a sleepy Congress has failed to correct since it first made 
some kind of mistake a century ago.
  It was no mistake then; it is not one now. The Interstate Commerce 
Commission's [ICC] independence from the executive branch, its 
insulation from parochial concerns, its bipartisan/staggered-term 
makeup--these things were done by design. And they are valued today.
  The amendment's supporters are at pains to promise that if you kill 
this agency today they will revive its functions somewhere in the 
bowels of the Department of Transportation tomorrow. They will do this, 
moreover, with a new structure inside DOT that recreates the very 
independence they want you to kill outside of DOT. Why do they want you 
to go to this trouble?
  To achieve cost savings, they say. The buzzwords here are 
``consolidation'' and ``streamlining'' and ``administrative 
efficiencies''--all good things, things no one can argue against.
  The trouble is, there would be no such cost savings. Not a week ago 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] told the authorizing Committees 
where this argument ought to be waged--that shifting the ICC's 
functions to DOT would, and I quote, ``compromise the independence of 
the decision-making process without generating meaningful cost 
savings.''
  That is a bad bargain, Mr. Chairman.
  It fails to appreciate the efficiencies this particular agency has 
already achieved. I know the ICC's jurisdiction has seen significant 
reductions--its critics are quick to point in out--but its staff and 
budget cuts in the past decade far exceed the jurisdictional change, 
made by Congress in early 1980's.
  The point is, Mr. Chairman, we in Congress do not lightly delegate 
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial duties. When we do, we take great 
care to encourage trust and confidence in the process. And independence 
is absolutely essential to that process. I ask you, why did we refuse 
to put the ICC into DOT back in 1966, when the new Department was 
created? And why have we refused since then? Because we, like both the 
consumers and industry, value an independent rulemaking and dispute 
resolution process.
  Our colleagues seek to do with this amendment what they could not do 
elsewhere, in the proper forum, before our committees of jurisdiction.
  Now I have no doubt that some of you who support total deregulation 
may believe that defunding the ICC sounds like a good thing. But I 
would urge you to take another look at this.
  You cannot deregulate by budget-cutting alone. Even if the ICC were 
to disappear this morning, the regulatory laws would stay in place.
  So, who would administer the law, provide the guidance, and know the 
details of the rule? These are good questions, I think.
  My greatest nightmare is that defunding the ICC would prime another 
negotiated rates-type situation for the courts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MINETA. In fact, if you look at the Negotiated Rates Act, which 
passed this House with overwhelming support just 6 months ago, much of 
what we fought for and accomplished together was to take issues like 
rate reasonableness and what constituted a contract and pull them out 
of the courts and put them back to the ICC. So, if slash-and-burn 
budget cutting wipes out the ICC, some of what we achieved with the 
Negotiated Rates Act would be wiped out as well.
  I do not believe that is anybody's intention, but it would be one of 
the results of this amendment. We should not be adopting amendments 
into law when we have so little understanding of what the consequences 
would be.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and at the 
outset let me say to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] and other Members on my side of the aisle that it puts me in a 
strange position of opposing the Kasich amendment, since I was one of 
the few early on to support the Kasich budget when, as he now says, we 
could get all of the people who supported the original Kasich budget a 
few years ago in a telephone booth. That telephone booth has gotten a 
lot larger.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike all 
funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission. This is not because I 
have any fondness for regulation or bureaucracy; quite the opposite. In 
fact, the current prosperity and resurgence of our railroad industry is 
due primarily to the wisdom of the Congress in enacting the Staggers 
Rail Act of 1980.
  That law severely restricted the degree to which the ICC could 
regulate the economic aspects of rail transportation--rates, 
abandonments, and so forth. The Staggers Act has been so successful 
that we now have the most financially healthy railroad industry in at 
least three decades. And that's the kind of genuine, targeted 
deregulation that makes good sense and good public policy. Even better, 
the Staggers Act empowered the ICC to go beyond the statutory 
deregulation, seeking out additional areas where Government intrusion 
in the marketplace is unnecessary. So the rail responsibilities now 
entrusted to the ICC are now part of the solution, not the problem. 
That's what those of us on the Energy and Commerce Committee know; the 
Public Works Committee will have to speak to the question of truck 
deregulation.
  Now to the numbers. Does this amendment save any money? Answer: not 
enough to matter. The General Accounting Office reported to the joint 
Energy and Commerce-Public Works hearing last week that just picking up 
the existing ICC functions and giving them ``as is'' to the Department 
of Transportation would produce no real savings. Instead, GAO said real 
savings--up to one-third of the ICC budget--could be obtained 
immediately by statutory changes to reduce trucking regulation.
  Some Members might be under the misimpression that keeping economic 
regulation at the ICC was an anomaly or an inadvertence after DOT was 
created in 1966. that is absolutely incorrect. Many noneconomic--
safety--functions formerly entrusted to the ICC were given to DOT at 
that time, but there was a conscious decision by Congress not to place 
issues of economic regulation in the more politicized environment of a 
Cabinet agency headed by a single appointee who served at the 
President's pleasure, not for a fixed term as ICC commissioners do.
  The proponents of this amendment claim that they are really pursuing 
substantive deregulation, and that this appropriations amendment is 
just the first step in ``forcing'' the authorizing committees to 
address the subject. that sounds good, but who's being forced to do 
what? If this amendment succeeds, only two results are assured: One, 
the immediate termination of many ICC employees and, two, the effective 
impounding of any remaining ICC funds without DOT being able to use 
them. That is due to the fact that even if DOT has plenty of money in 
its account after this amendment, DOT still will not have any legal 
authority to spend those funds on ICC functions. Only an authorization 
statute can do that.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my own enthusiasm 
for minimizing Federal regulation wherever we can. But this amendment 
produces no real economy--just organizational chaos. Even the most 
hidebound bureaucracies are not improved by adding confusion to the 
mix.
  Let us defeat this amendment, get back to what we ought to be doing, 
and that is deregulating by the authorizing committees and making a 
system work for the benefit of all taxpayers.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one thing we have got to make clear, the 
General Accounting Office is not the budget estimator of the House; 
and, second, the General Accounting Office has nothing to do with 
estimating our bill. We have the official CBO estimate, which shows in 
the first year we will save $25 million. We have a complete severance 
pay package, $150 million in savings over 5 years, officially scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office, the bible of congressional budget 
estimating activities.
  The General Accounting Office is not the office that does the 
estimates; it is the Congressional Budget Office. Furthermore, what we 
are proposing in this is a bill in Public Works that has sat there for 
a year. We were promised some effort to take a look at this. We did not 
have a hearing until 1 week ago. What we want to do is we want to 
orderly transfer the functions into the Department of Transportation, 
precisely what was done or similar to what was done with the Civil 
Aeronautics Board, a proposal, I must say, that even Stephen Breyer, 
the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, I suspect would support 
this.
  This is a shrinking of a bureaucracy that really has no utility in an 
era of deregulation.
  Mr. CONDIT. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Reclaiming my time, I simply say that change is really hard to make 
happen in this institution. Change is hard to make happen anywhere. I 
believe this is what this is all about.
  The American people want us to make some intelligent changes here, 
and I believe this is an intelligent change. It is a change that has 
been a long time coming. Consolidation will result in eliminating a lot 
of duplication, it will help in terms of saving money. It is a budget 
saver, and make no mistake about it, you know that the President has 
already stated that we ought to use CBO numbers and he had said those 
are the numbers that count.
  As has been stated already, the savings by CBO in the first year are 
$25 million and, over a 5-year period, $150 million. That is a big 
savings. That is by the CBO.
  That is the agency that the President said we ought to use.
  The point I really want to make here today, I think the point about 
the savings has already been made and Members ought to realize that and 
Members ought to realize this is a vote about change. The American 
people want us to make some changes, some tough choices. This is a vote 
to change the place.
  But in changing the place, when we move those responsibilities over 
to the Department of Transportation, we are not going to weaken the 
regulations or the standards. We are not going to weaken those at all. 
Most of them have been eliminated, but the ones that have not been 
eliminated, that have not been eliminated, will be carried out by the 
Department of Transportation.
  So whatever is necessary to be done, whatever is left there is going 
to happen. What we have done is just eliminated bureaucracy. We have 
changed. We have for one time eliminated an agency. When is the last 
time we have done that here? I am not sure. But we need to make change 
happen, and I call upon my colleagues today to evaluate this carefully. 
You will clearly see it is a change that you are making happen today.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Last year I voted against the amendment. I went back and looked to 
see what I had said. I said, ``Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the 
amendment. I am going to oppose the amendment, but in defense of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], let me just say that I 
think he does speak about a certain frustration that a lot of people 
have.''
  I went on, ``I remember in 1984 we did exactly what the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is saying when we merged the Civil Aeronautics 
Board. The first recommendation actually came under the Carter 
administration to merge the CAB, and we put it into the Department of 
Transportation.''

                              {time}  1510

  I went on. It was September 23 when I said:
  ``So the idea does have merit, and I would urge the Congress and the 
authorizing committees here to listen to what my colleague has said.''
  The gentleman's amendment makes sense, and I think the idea should be 
given consideration because I did hear many of the same arguments when 
the CAB case came up.
  Now I will tell my colleagues I have a couple of problems with the 
technical part concerning how we blend in the protection for the 
Federal employees. But if this amendment carries, I will work with the 
majority and those who are interested to make sure that those 
protections are made.
  I sat through the ICC hearings, and at times I just wondered. It just 
seems that this group, who I think perhaps, maybe, do more than the 
authors of the amendment think are necessary, ought to be in the DOT. 
The same way that Mr. Carter and Mr. Breyer, whoever came up with the 
idea, felt that they should be in this DOT at that time.
  Now when we moved this CAB, we lost nothing. We actually, if my 
colleagues go back, will find that we have gained. I think the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] or the gentleman who spoke last 
time spoke about change. I think this is an opportunity for change. Not 
because I think the amendment is absolutely perfectly drawn, but I 
believe, based on what I said last year, and how I felt, and how I 
watched, and what I have seen, I think the appropriate vote today is a 
vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
to move the process on whereby we can go to conference, and deal with 
this issue and do something which, I think, will be in the best 
interests of the American people.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to 
eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission. There is not a day that 
goes by where we do not hear some Members stand up here on the floor of 
the House and talk about how we have to cut this program or that 
program in order to deal with the Federal budget deficit.
  Finally, we have an offering before us as a Congress to be able to 
eliminate a Federal program and do it, not by cutting senior citizens, 
not by hurting our children, not by hurting anyone other than the very 
jobs that are supported by the agency itself. We do not, in fact, end 
up, through this elimination of this agency, in any way affecting the 
regulatory capabilities of the Federal Government to look out after the 
interests that the agency was designed to promote.
  If we look at what this agency does, it essentially performed a role 
a 100 years ago that created regulation of our trucking industry, it 
created regulations of our railroad industries, it arranged for 
regulation of our moving industries, it arranged, more recently, for 
the arrangements of our transportation and air line ticket prices. The 
fact is that we have, this Congress in the 1980's, chosen to deregulate 
every single one of those industries, thereby eliminating the very 
necessity of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not question that we cannot find somebody to 
come in and tell us why this agency still needs to be in existence even 
though the regulations that it oversees no longer exist. I am sure 
somebody can come up with that justification. But the fact is that is 
all it is is a justification. It is not real.
  We do not need the ICC. We can transfer the functions that the ICC 
perform into the Department of Transportation or the Department of 
Justice.
  To those that say it is impossible to do so, Mr. Chairman, I would 
simply say:
  ``Let's look at what we do at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We 
have an independent veterans agency that looks out after the interests 
of individual veterans that have a gripe with that agency.''
  The fact is, if we look at other programs, we find that it worked 
perfectly well to have independence of judgment within agencies as to 
grievances that individuals, or corporations, or others might have with 
the way the agency develops. That is what we expect from our Department 
of Justice. It is what we can expect from the Department of 
Transportation.
  I think it is a well thought through amendment. I agree with the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] that there might be some details in 
terms of how we are dealing with the issues of the 600 employees so 
that there might be some independence issues that we can take a look at 
in terms of trying to strengthen independence.
  I think that the Congress owes a great deal, a debt of gratitude, to 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], and we ought to acknowledge 
that under the leadership of the gentleman from Washington we have been 
able to cut 70 percent of this agency over the course of the last 
several years, and that is a major testimony to his leadership.
  But I do think that the time has come to ice the ICC.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong 
support to the Kasich-Hefley-Condit-DeLay-Cox-Kennedy amendment to 
eliminate funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission. As chairman 
of one of the House's Committee on the Budget's working groups assigned 
to physical capital activities, including the ICC, we examined this 
issue. I believe it is time to get rid of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. This commission is now looking for ways to justify its 
existence, and those ways include more regulations that will end up 
hurting business in this country.
  The official CBO pricing of this proposal will save $15 million to 
$45 million in the first year and $30 to $50 million every year 
thereafter. This Nation faces spiraling deficits, and, even though it 
is not billions, it is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as a 
small step to reform Government and reduce waste.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to take the conservative view on this matter. As 
my colleagues know, a real conservative wants to know what is going to 
happen and whether the change that is projected is one which is going 
to make the situation better for the country or worse.
  Now the offerers and supporters of the amendment are correct that the 
ICC's authority over most rate regulation has been abolished, and that 
is so. There is no hidden agenda here on behalf of those of us who say 
it is unwise to abolish the ICC to restore rate regulation. That is not 
at issue. The thesis that we see before us here is that we are going to 
save money by abolishing the ICC.
  The General Accounting Office says that there will be no savings 
flowing from abolishing the ICC, and, if my colleagues look at those 
numbers, and if my colleagues look at the numbers that have been 
presented by the Congressional Budget Office, they will find that those 
are correct numbers and that they make sense.
  I say to my colleagues, ``In point of fact, if you abolish the ICC, 
the functions have to be transferred somewhere. Where? To the 
Department of Transportation. And you have to put people to work at the 
Department of Transportation to do the same work that they are now 
doing at the ICC, and it is a well settled experience of all of us who 
have dealt with reorganizations that, when you reorganize, you usually 
cost the government money.''
  But what really will happen here is that this reorganization that is 
projected, it, first of all, cannot take place until after the 
legislative committees have functioned. But equally important, we are 
going to have to pay severance pays and the cost of discharging a large 
number of Federal employees. The cost of this is some $12 million.
  Now that is not a big item, but it is an important item because it is 
money that is wasted, and then we are going to have to go out and 
rehire many employees to do the same thing that is now done at the ICC.

                              {time}  1520

  Now, what are they going to do? They are going to deal with the 
licensing of railroads. They are going to deal with protection of 
communities against termination of rail services.
  Now, some of my colleagues around here are not aware of what happens 
when rail services are terminated. But the result to communities, to 
industries, to workers, to agriculture, to cities, and to States, are 
calamitous. And one of the things that the ICC does is to conduct these 
undertakings in an open, collegial, process, to which all may have 
access and in which all may participate after notice and opportunity 
for hearing.
  The function then of the ICC, as opposed to the Department of 
Transportation, is to see to it that you have an open process, a 
collegial process, in which the Congress may supervise and observe 
closely the actions taken, the communities may know that they are going 
to have a fair opportunity to be heard.
  Move the matter to the Department of Transportation, and you have a 
fine solution. It would be one which would be approved in Russia. It 
would be one which would be thoroughly enjoyed in South America, or in 
Europe, where you have then a clerk who stamps ``approved'' or 
``disapproved.'' No hearing, and your railroad service for a community 
is discontinued. Industry, jobs, agriculture, employment, is hurt by 
that process.
  What we are talking about here is addressing the things which the ICC 
does in an open process, instead of moving those functions, at no 
savings, and perhaps at substantial additional costs, to the wonderful 
closed system that you have at the Department of Transportation, where 
decisions are made in the bowels of a building, with no sunlight, with 
no opportunity to be heard, no ability of the communities, the 
citizens, the Congress, and others, to know what is going on and why.
  Now, perhaps you like that. Perhaps you want that. But if you have 
ever dealt with the termination of rail service, or disputes over 
trackage rights, mergers, sales consolidations, and other operating 
transactions involving railroads, you will know that these are things 
which should be done in the open, in the clear light of day, with 
notice and hearings and opportunity for people to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Simply eliminating the ICC's functions and legal 
responsibilities in the name of budget considerations or some other 
consideration is not going to help. It is going to do great damage to 
the transportation system, and, more importantly, to those who are 
dependent upon it, and who are dependent on having this being done in 
an open process.
  Let me try and summarize. This proposal is not going to save any 
money. It is simply going to require us to pay a lot of severance 
money, and then pay a lot of money to hire a lot of people over at the 
Department of Transportation after we have fired them over here at the 
ICC. It is going to move an open process in dealing with the 
responsible regulatory business that is now done by the ICC from an 
open process, where all may participate and know what is going on, to a 
process where everything is closed down and where public participation, 
knowledge, information, and opportunity to be heard, and to know what 
is going on, is foreclosed.
  In my book, that is one of the most unwise steps that we can take, 
and it is not the conservative who wants the abolition of the ICC. It 
is the conservative who is responsible, who says know what it is before 
you do it, and know what the consequences of your action might be 
before you take those steps. That is why this amendment should be 
rejected.
  I urge my colleagues to reject an irresponsible, ill-conceived 
amendment that has been rejected time after time by this body, and 
should be rejected again.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment conclude in 30 minutes, by 3:55. I have 
discussed this with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. We want to 
provide an opportunity for everyone to have their say.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we could 
agree to a 4 o'clock time limit. I would say to the gentleman, it is 
not our intention to filibuster. We have a number of speakers. We may 
be able to wrap up before 4. If the gentleman could go to 4, we can 
reach agreement on that.
  Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment conclude by 4 o'clock.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will elect to continue under the 5-minute 
rule.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to address two issues the previous 
speaker brought up. The first one is the ICC holds all these meetings 
in the glare of public scrutiny. In 1993 the ICC held only eight voting 
conferences in 9 months, covering 25 proceedings. During that time, the 
agency handled by nonvoting more than 300 other matters. So this is not 
an agency that is accustomed to operating in the light of day.
  In regard to the issue of the abandonment of rail lines, let me just 
show you on this chart. The railroad abandonment activity, these are 
numbers of activities that have been applied for. It represents the 
ones that they applied for and were denied. As you can see, there are 
not a lot of people applying, and virtually none of them have been 
denied. This is not a problem.
  Let me explain. In 1989 there were only two denied. In 1990, there 
was one. In 1991, there was zero. In 1992, there were two. And in 1993, 
there was only one case. So we are not talking about a giant flurry of 
activity, because it does not exist. We are not talking about losing 
all this public purview into this. In fact, we can enhance public 
participation and we should. We can do it in DOT.
  One more time: It is not the Government Accounting Office that does 
estimates, it is the Congressional Budget Office. And we save $150 
million over 5 years, plus in the first year, a minimum of $250 
million, while also trying to accommodate the problems we have with the 
transfer of employees.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for those points and for the fine work he has done on this amendment.
  Let me just say I support this amendment. I think the ICC is the 
prime example, it is the epitome of an agency that does little more 
than push paper. It helps no one. It helps no one other than the 
bureaucrats who work for it.
  Several years ago when I was practicing law, I had some experience 
with the ICC. I was representing a small bus company which operated 
tour buses and which was a mom-and-pop operation. But it was a very 
fine business. It had safe, new buses. The owner of the company had 
driven up well over 1 million miles himself without an accident. He had 
two drivers who had driven well over 1 million miles without an 
accident.
  He had a previous lawyer who had advised him he did not need ICC 
approval for out-of-State trips if they involved church groups. So he 
took, among other things, the youth group of the First Baptist Church 
of Concord, TN, on a mission trip to South Dakota. He took the Baptist 
Student Union at Carson-Newman College on a trip. He took several 
senior citizen groups from churches on trips out of State.
  And then, all of a sudden, the ICC swooped down upon him, and we go 
through a full day-long hearing. Never once was there anything said 
about the safety of his buses. Never once was there anything said about 
his employees or himself. There was nothing that he did wrong, other 
than cross a State line.
  We could not believe that this was the United States of America. The 
only thing that he had done was his prices were about half those of the 
bigger companies.
  In that instance, the ICC was responsible for causing consumers to 
have to pay twice as much as they would have otherwise. The ICC has 
done little more than raise prices to consumers and provide jobs for 
the bureaucrats who work for it.
  This amendment, as has been pointed out previously, will save some 
$25 million to $50 million. I cannot think of a better amendment or one 
that the people of this country, the owners of our Government, would 
support, than this one. So I urge my colleagues to strike a blow for 
fiscal sanity and support the Kasich amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes an incredible 
point that Members really need to think about. The easiest, the least 
expensive business that one can get into in this country is in the 
trucking business. All one has to do is buy a van and start the 
business. what the gentleman from Tennessee is describing, the onerous 
paperwork, the paperwork burden, the rate filings, the collegial 
atmosphere that the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
talks about is intimidating to the disadvantage of this country to get 
into this business or to stay in this business. In fact, the gentleman 
describes an incident not unlike one that I encountered where a 
Hispanic was cleaning commodes in an automobile dealership in my 
district went out and started his own company, got caught by the ICC 
and now he is back cleaning commodes. I think it is outrageous.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. If we want to help 
small business as opposed to big business, then I would say vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  One of the most distinguished Members of this House in opposition to 
this amendment said it was an amendment that no true conservative could 
support. Thus I am free to support it, and I do.
  I begin with this: If we were today creating a government given the 
role that the Interstate Commerce Commission now plays, would we create 
one? I do not think anyone would say yes. That is, it is not a question 
as to whether or not they have a role. But do they have a role that 
rises to the level where there should be Presidentially appointed 
commissioners confirmed by the Senate and all of the accoutrements?
  Given what we know, I think it is clear the functions can be 
performed by fewer people. Many of us also believe, because this is an 
areas where I incline strongly to the view that deregulation is 
economically advantageous and better for the consumer, I also believe 
that when we have this as a component of the Department of 
Transportation rather than as a separate board with all of the 
trappings, we are likelier to get the functions reduced.
  Every human being tends to want to retain the functions. Put five 
Presidential appointees or however many we have into this, have them 
confirmed by the Senate and they are giving, frankly, the functions of 
the ICC more of a role than they ought to have. That does not mean that 
they have no functions.
  I mentioned the Senate. There is a collateral reason why I think this 
is in our interest. Right now they have to be confirmed by the Senate. 
That means five more confirmations. That means five more opportunities 
for Senators to put holds on things. Do I believe that by lessening the 
role of the Senate in the process we will probably reduce some 
inefficiency in Government just by that? Having these people appointed 
to do their job rather than being Presidentially appointed and 
Senatorially confirmed in and of itself seems to me is an advantage.
  The fundamental point I would make is this, it is not denigration of 
the important work that a lot of decent people do at the ICC to note 
that if we were today creating a government, we would not give to this 
function an independent agency. It is simply not on a par with the 
other independent agencies, the SEC, et cetera.
  Therefore, it appears to me to be a reason to vote for the amendment. 
Indisputably, we can perform the functions it performs less 
expensively, and I think if we go that route, we may even save more 
money because I believe we are likelier further to deflate the 
functions.
  I am a supporter of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be well to put into context why we are 
debating this today. One important, perhaps overriding, reason is that 
our Government is $4.5 trillion in debt, and we are losing money, 
hemorrhaging red ink at the rate of over $1 billion a day. So we are 
looking for places to cut.
  What can we do to stop this hemorrhaging of red ink? If we took over 
a failing enterprise that was losing hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year, what would we do? Would we trim at the edges? No. Of course not. 
We would sell off the unprofitable divisions and focus our energies on 
those things that really worked, those things that made sense for the 
1990's.
  Trimming at the edges, cutting across the board by 2 percent these 
days has all of the logic of taking 2 percent of the pages out of every 
book in the library in order to cut the library budget.
  We have to start in the Federal Government liquidating entire 
agencies, zeroing out whole agencies where the functions themselves are 
overtaken by events. And what better place to start than an antiquated 
agency like the ICC, the oldest regulatory agency in Washington, 107 
years old.
  What better place to start than an agency where three of the 
commissioners came to my office shortly after I was elected and said, 
we should be abolished. We have nothing left to do.
  The ICC has spent the last 14 years with its bureaucratic energies 
simply searching for some new mission, something else to do.
  In its salad days, before bipartisan congressional majorities clipped 
its wings, it was a regulatory terror. It became the textbook example 
of mindless regulation cited by liberal consumer groups and 
conservative free market economists alike.
  As a result, in 1980, three important bills were passed: The Staggers 
Act deregulated the railroads. The Motor Carrier Act deregulated 
trucking, and the Household Goods Transportation Act deregulated 
moving.
  All three of these bills passed in 1980.
  Two years later a fourth bill was passed, the Bus Regulation Reform 
Act, in 1982, so that today we can say that most interstate surface 
transportation has already been deregulated and that is why the ICC has 
nothing left to do. Yet it still exists.
  This is a great place to start cutting. But the ICC, which is a 
relic, think of this, of the 19th century, is not dead yet. It refuses 
to die. In fact, the ICC is the Freddy Krueger of the Federal Triangle.
  Despite the drastic decline in its authority, it no longer has the 
authority to set prices, for example, the ICC still requires, as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] pointed out so well here on the floor, 
carriers to file paperwork every time they changed their prices. This 
paper shuffling costs the taxpayers $15 million a year. But it costs 
consumers much, much more, even though the GAO, which has been cited so 
many times on the floor here during this debate, has found that these 
filings are essentially a formality.
  All told, the Congressional Budget Office, which scores savings in 
our budget, has estimated that this proposal, this amendment will save 
$150 million over 5 years. I repeat, this amendment that we are now 
debating, according to the CBO, will save $150 million over 5 years. No 
wonder that taxpayer watchdog groups across the country have endorsed 
this amendment: Groups like Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers' Union, and the 
National Association of Manufacturers.
  So what is the downside of eliminating the ICC? We have heard some 
arguments here on the floor today. There is no downside.
  There are some bureaucratic arguments that are advanced by the people 
who work at taxpayer expense over at the ICC, but funding another 
century of unnecessary regulation is not a persuasive argument.
  The diehard regulators point out that the ICC performs quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial functions. So what? So does virtually 
every regulatory agency in Washington, including the Department of 
Transportation where these few remaining functions would be transferred 
under our legislation.
  The bureaucrats say the ICC has broad discretion and makes difficult 
fact determinations. Well, so does virtually every regulatory agency, 
including DOT.
  But wait, they say, the ICC actually regulates other Federal 
agencies. Well, so do a host of other agencies, including, as it 
happens, DOT.
  The determinations now made by the ICC would be made by DOT under our 
proposal, as has been outlined.
  Importantly, they would remain subject to judicial review, even after 
transfer to DOT, ensuring their impartiality.
  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. We are supposed to be running a 
government, not an antique collection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cox was allowed to proceed for 10 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, if the United States Congress cannot bring 
itself to part with this relic of Grover Cleveland's first term, Grover 
Cleveland's first term, that is what this dates from, the American 
people will know for certain we are just not serious about our $4.5 
trillion debt.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWIFT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy, I would ask if the 
gentleman is the final speaker. I am going to try to make sure we wrap 
this up as quickly as we can. It appears that way.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, as far as I 
know, but I am neither controlling the time here nor the debate, but as 
far as I know.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the argument that one of 
the reasons we should get rid of the ICC is that it is old. The 
Constitution is older. Logic would suggest we get rid of the 
Constitution. The Magna Carta is older. Perhaps Great Britain should 
get rid of that. The Bible, also. That is the kind of logic we have 
been hearing all morning and afternoon long on this bill. What we have 
been hearing is wishful thinking masquerading as fact.
  Mr. Chairman, Members have been subjected to arguments and a wish 
list. They have not been subjected to many facts. Let me try and bring 
some facts to this debate, and make three points.
  Mr. Chairman, first, the kind of work that the ICC performs, 
adjudications, investigations, the resolution of complaints between 
shippers and carriers and oversight of our Nation's surface 
transportation industries, are best performed by an independent 
regulatory commission. That point has been stated over and over and 
over again by the transportation industries themselves, by shippers and 
carriers and labor and local communities. They are best served by an 
independent regulatory commission, and with decisions that are openly 
arrived at. They do not want these functions transferred to an 
executive branch agency.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard very early in the debate that the only people 
that support that is organized labor. Let me add, Mr. Chairman, to the 
list: the National Coal Association; Consolidated Freightways, Omni 
Tracks, Inc., a small railroad; the Regional Railroads of America; and 
the Association of American Railroads. That was a fact given earlier 
that was simply incorrect and wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, the second point I would like to make is that the 
Department of Transportation does not have the expertise to handle the 
functions of the ICC. They have told us so. DOT does not want the 
functions of the ICC to be transferred. They have told us so.
  The Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce held a joint hearing last week in which we 
investigated exactly this issue, and found a number of very interesting 
things, including this question asked by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta]:
  ``Could you tell us whether or not the Department of Transportation 
would be in a position to assume all of the current ICC 
responsibilities and functions?''
  The representative of DOT said ``We would not be in such a position, 
because there are areas of expertise that are really unique to the ICC 
that would need to be built up for the department.'' Again, the 
question we would have is, what would be the point of just having to 
develop that expertise?
  ``The second issue really is there have been different ways of 
reassigning these functions to DOT that have been considered, but there 
would be insufficient funds to do that.''
  He said, ``What we have is, we really need to set up an entire 
mechanism to provide the kind of isolation and insulation in what are 
really, in many respects, fundamentally quasi-judicial functions and 
decisions.''
  ``What, again,'' said the DOT representative, ``is the point of 
having to do that except to show that it is theoretically possible in 
some convoluted way to do so when it does not seem like a good exercise 
of anybody's time?''
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this amendment acknowledges that 
problem by requiring the transfer of all of the workers at the ICC to 
the new quarters in the Transportation Building, and that does not 
sound very efficient to me.
  However, even if we should go along with this jury-rigged scheme of 
first cutting off the funding and then coming back after the fact and 
eliminating the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Interstate 
Commerce Act or some of the functions, if we accept that we are just 
shuffling around desks and bodies and responsibilities, there will be 
no regulation, no oversight, no cop on the beat for surface 
transportation, and we still do not save any money.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman, that even after sacrificing the 
independent regulatory system that has been the support of the shippers 
and carriers who depend upon its ability to undertake expert, 
disinterested adjudication, we do not save any money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. SWIFT was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office reported after 
extensive analysis that their conclusion was quite specific, that 
killing the ICC and transferring its functions and expertise to DOT 
would ``compromise the independence of the decisionmaking process 
without generating meaningful cost savings.''
  The supporters of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, have talked about 
some CBO estimates that purport to save $30 million or so each year. 
First, with great respect to the CBO, they will first have to tell us 
that these figures are a preliminary analysis based on some very 
arbitrary assumptions.
  This question was raised in the hearing as well, and the CBO, in 
response to a question abut the CBO's figures, the GAO said, ``To give 
CBO its credit, however, they do admit that they did not undertake a 
very sophisticated analysis. The CBO usually does undertake a very 
sophisticated analysis when it does its work, and we have a lot of 
respect for their work, but this is not one of those attempts on their 
part.''
  I said, ``So you are saying,'' in the net result, ``that you and the 
CBO both agree,'' when we get to apples and apples, ``there would be no 
savings? No significant savings is the word you used.''
  And the GAO said yes.
  I am sorry that the authors of this amendment, who testified at a 
recent joint hearing, did not stay around long enough to hear the 
testimony of the Department of Transportation of the Government 
Accounting Office on not only the importance of preserving this 
independent regulatory body, but also on discussions on where the ICC 
needs to respond to changes in its transportation industry.
  The authors of this amendment reverse the process. If we pass this 
scorched earth amendment and then let the Secretary of Transportation 
recommend what pieces of the Interstate Commerce Act should be kept, 
and which pieces would be thrown away, we not only essentially delegate 
the responsibilities of the Congress, and I would be happy to hear from 
the Secretary, but we should first determine what it is we want the 
agency to do, and then appropriate.
  In the past 14 years we have eliminated 70 percent of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission. That, here on this floor, is used as a criticism. 
If we eliminate 70 percent, the logic seems to be that we should 
certainly eliminate the last 30 percent, rather than, I think, 
declaring a justified victory that we have reduced the size of this 
agency by 70 percent.
  However, those who are knowledgeable about the work of the ICC, the 
shippers, carriers, AFL-CIO, the GAO, and the Department of 
Transportation itself, say that this amendment is the wrong way to do 
that. In fact, the transportation industry speaks with an almost 
unanimous voice: ``Do not pass this amendment.''
  H.L. Mencken said that ``there is always an easy solution to every 
human problem; neat, plausible, and wrong.'' This amendment is poorly 
thought out. It at best will cause significant short-term dislocation 
in our transportation industry, and it will save no money. That is at 
its best, it will save no money. At its worst, it will cause chaos 
throughout the transportation industry, and still save no money.
  The amendment is wrong, Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWIFT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask, did the GAO look at our 
proposal?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] 
has expired.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Carr], we are running into a problem here. We are running 
into a problem here. We have basically about two or three more 
speakers. We are bumping up against the time limit.
  Mr. Chairman, we can go ahead and keep the time limit if the 
gentleman would approve a unanimous consent agreement, because we do 
not want to run over 5 or 10 minutes. We may need 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment end at 4:05. That ought to be able to 
accommodate the gentleman, if Members will keep their remarks brief.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, under that circumstance, is it 
not appropriate for the Chair to divide the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond that the Chair has that 
authority, and given the fact that there are various speakers on both 
sides, the Chair will allocate the time remaining equally between the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], with the time to be managed on each side by those gentlemen.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kasich 
amendment to eliminate the ICC.
  Last year, President Clinton challenged all of us to be specific in 
our spending cuts. It seems to me this cut should be at the top of 
every Member's list.
  The ICC is clearly past its prime. Deregulation has made many of its 
tasks obsolete. Today is our chance to finally do this.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a little bit surprised by the remarks of the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington, the previous speaker, who said 
that the Department of Transportation does not want the functions that 
should be transferred to the Department. Too bad. Who elected the 
bureaucrats at the Department of Transportation? Who charged them with 
the responsibility of streamlining government? We are responsible to 
the taxpayers. The Department of Transportation is responsible to us as 
part of the executive branch of government, as well. It seems to me we 
are more representative of the taxpayers and the voters of this land 
and should make this decision today.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know how numbers can be cooked, but the most 
objective analyses show that somewhere between $20 million and $30 
million would be saved the first year and at least $150 million over 5 
years by eliminating this agency.
  Mr. Chairman, the same amendment fell just 11 votes short of passage 
last year in this body. This year let us stand up and be accountable to 
the taxpayers of America. Let us listen to the 600,000 members of 
Citizens Against Government Waste who have recommended that this be 
abolished. Let us eliminate this ancient relic of an agency and start 
streamlining government. Let us support the Kasich amendment to end the 
ICC.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to 
eliminate funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission. This is a 
perfect example of a government agency that has been allowed to 
continue to exist long after outliving its usefulness.
  In my Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994, H.R. 3958, I proposed the 
elimination or scaling back of over 150 specific programs. The ICC 
stands out like a beacon on this list of wasteful spending.
  The ICC regulations are no longer relevant. Deregulation of the 
trucking industry occurred over a decade ago and has ensured that 
competition exists to protect America's consumers. Thus, we no longer 
need a Federal agency to provide that function.
  This void of responsibility leaves the ICC with plenty of time to 
spend the taxpayers money on such needless studies and reports as ``So 
You Want to Start a Small Railroad.'' The American people have made it 
loud and clear they will not tolerate Congress squandering their money 
on this nonsense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to take a hard look at this 
program and decide whether or not it is worth borrowing against our 
children's future. The answer is quite simply, no. Let us do the truly 
responsible thing and put this outdated Commission out of its misery.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials recently 
conducted a hearing on the issues being raised by this amendment.
  Our colleagues, John Kasich, Joel Hefley, Tom DeLay, and Gary Condit 
all were kind enough to appear before the subcommittee.
  I appreciate that.
  What the subcommittee found out is that if we transfer all of the 
ICC's functions to the DOT there would be no budget savings; none. Both 
the CBO and GAO agree.
  Any budget savings would only result by eliminating some of the ICC's 
responsibilities, but that is not what is being required under the 
Kasich legislation.
  Second, many in the transportation community and the GAO maintain 
that it is in the public interest to maintain an independent, quasi-
judicial, authority--the ICC--to govern such issues as ratemaking. The 
authorizing committees in the House concur in this assessment. Now, let 
me state that this is not a partisan issue. During our hearing we 
received testimony from all of the ICC Commissioners. The Republican 
Commissioner is Karen Phillips. She is a very fine and capable 
commissioner.
  I quote her from the hearing transcript:

       I think to zero-fund the agency and then let the Secretary 
     decide a few months down the road what needs to be kept or 
     what doesn't--I think it would ensure only one thing and that 
     is chaos in the transportation industries; and there are a 
     lot of people who would be very poorly served, I think, by 
     such an approach.

  Let me be clear. Commissioner Phillips is known to be a proponent of 
additional transportation deregulation. There are some philosophical 
differences between her and her other colleagues.
  But in this case, Republican and Democrat Commissioners alike, are 
united in opposition to what is being proposed today on the House 
floor. Because they realize, as should we, that this amendment has 
nothing to do with whether you believe there should be less regulation 
or more regulation of the trucking and railroad industries.
  The issue at hand involves process. It involves how best to provide 
for the effective administration of the Commission's regulatory and 
consumer protection mandates.
  And in the opinion of this gentleman from West Virginia, the public 
interest is best served by maintaining an independent ICC.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today one of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], suggested that change is never easy. I am also 
reminded of the saying that ``If you want something to last forever, 
put it in the Federal budget.''
  Change is not easy at the national level, but change can come. It has 
come in the past with strong presidential leadership.
  In 1980, thanks to the leadership of President Carter, we passed 
major deregulation. We deregulated the railroad industry with the 
Staggers Act in 1980, the Motor Carrier Deregulation Act in 1980, and 
the Household Goods Deregulation Act in 1980. This leaves us in 
present-day America with a dramatically different regulatory landscape 
than the one that existed just 10 to 12 years ago. In this timeframe, 
we have seen a tenfold reduction in the number of railroad line 
abandonments. Those requests have trickled to a point where they are 
almost nonexistent, and the need for an extensive ICC process to review 
those requests is no longer there. Truck rate filings result in less 
than 1 percent of these rate requests being denied. GAO has recently 
submitted a study that suggests that virtually all of this rate review 
is simply a formality.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for us to question whether we 
any longer need an independent ICC. I think the answer is obviously 
not. The time has come to question whether we need 600 employees to 
review and implement these regulations. I think the answer is obviously 
not.
  Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KASICH. I very much appreciate the chairman's graciousness in 
accommodating unanimous consent requests.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to close this argument on our 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the agony of trying to bring about change 
in the Federal Government.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], said, once an agency 
begins operation in the Federal Government, it lasts forever. Today we 
come to the floor representing the taxpayer, because today we are 
offering an amendment that will cut the size of Government, make it 
more efficient, and save the taxpayer money. It is, as we have seen 
from the debate, and I think that this has been a good debate, a 
bipartisan amendment. Our amendment is not a tax cut, it is a 
government cut. It starts the two-step process of eliminating the 
Interstate Commerce Commission and transferring its duties, the duties 
that need to be transferred, to the Department of Transportation.
  Much of today's debate concentrated on the amendment's savings: Will 
it save money? How much money will it save?
  But there is more than the taxpayers' money at stake here today. This 
amendment is also about good Government and a good legislative process 
amendment.
  Let us consider the savings first.
  The received GAO study suggests the savings from transferring the ICC 
to the DOT would be minimal, not as we have been told here today, no 
savings, but minimal savings. There would be minimal, and that is only 
considering one portion of it, that is considering the railroad portion 
of it.

                          ____________________