[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4556, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments; as follows:

  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               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.]

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Secretary, $1,280,000.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Deputy Secretary, $583,000.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $7,876,000.

      Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Transportation Policy, $2,309,000.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, $7,887,000.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs, $5,100,000, including not 
     to exceed $60,000 for allocation within the Department of 
     official reception and representation expenses as the 
     Secretary may determine.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs, $2,284,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration, $23,385,000.

                        Office of Public Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, 
     $1,458,000.

                         Executive Secretariat

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Secretariat, 
     $932,000.

                         Contract Appeals Board

       For necessary expenses of the Contract Appeals Board, 
     $630,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $1,779,000. In addition to this amount and notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, of the funds provided in this or 
     any other Act for the Department of Transportation, the 
     Secretary may transfer not to exceed $8,104,000 from accounts 
     otherwise available for carrying out civil rights functions 
     within the Department of Transportation to this account for 
     additional necessary expenses of a consolidated Departmental 
     Office of Civil Rights within the Office of the Secretary: 
     Provided, That of the amount transferred $385,600 shall be 
     available for the Office of General Counsel to provide legal 
     support to a consolidated Departmental Office of Civil 
     Rights: Provided further, That in addition, for transfer of 
     civil rights and legal support activities related to the 
     Federal Highway Administration $3,283,000 to be derived from 
     ``Federal-aid Highways'' subject to the ``Limitation on 
     General Operating Expenses.''

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Small and 
     Disadvantaged Business Utilization, $936,000.

                   Minority Business Resource Center

       For necessary expenses of the Minority Business Resource 
     Center, $4,000,000, of which $3,962,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds available for the purposes of 
     the Minority Business Resource Center in this or any other 
     Act may be used for business opportunities related to any 
     mode of transportation.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intelligence and 
     Security, $1,000,000.

                        Office of Intermodalism

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intermodalism, 
     $1,050,000.

           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] $8,293,000.

               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] $3,833,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, there may be credited to this account 
     up to $200,000 received from user fees established for 
     regulatory services.

                          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] $94,855,000 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] $33,423,000, 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] $33,423,000 
     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 large or medium hub 
     airport, or that require a rate of subsidy per passenger in 
     excess of $200 unless such point is greater than two hundred 
     and ten miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport: 
     Provided further, That of funds provided for ``Small 
     Community Air Service'' by Public Law 101-508, [$13,000,000] 
     $4,000,000 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] $1,976,000 shall be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, [$38,728,000] $39,426,000 shall be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, [$678,000] $713,000 shall 
     be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and [$172,000] 
     $181,000 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] 
     $18,044,000, 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] $2,600,000,000, 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] $370,400,000, of which 
     $32,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund; of which [$201,750,000] $185,400,000 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] $11,800,000 shall be 
     available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 1997; 
     [$31,500,000] $40,700,000 shall be available for other 
     equipment, to remain available until September 30, 1997; 
     [$93,050,000] $87,800,000 shall be available for shore 
     facilities and aids to navigation facilities, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1997; and [$44,000,000] 
     $44,700,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, [1995] 1996: Provided, That funds received from 
     the sale of [the VC-11A] VC-11A and HU-25 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] 
     $24,000,000, 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] 
     $64,981,000: Provided, That funds provided under this head 
     shall support a selected reserve force of 8,000 members.

              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.

                              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.

                    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] $4,591,440,000, 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)] 5545 (a), (b), or (d), 
     or 5546 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].

                        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] 
     $2,086,941,000, of which [$1,968,200,000] $1,878,441,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1997, and of which 
     $208,500,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     [1995] 1996: 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] $264,440,000, to be derived 
     from the Airport 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] $1,450,000,000 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.

                Airport Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

       The Secretary of Transportation may hereafter issue notes 
     or other obligations to the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     such forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and 
     subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury may prescribe. Such obligations may be issued to pay 
     any necessary expenses required pursuant to any guarantee 
     issued under the Act of September 7, 1957, Public Law 85-307, 
     as amended (49 U.S.C. 1324 note). None of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for activities under this head the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $9,970,000 during 
     fiscal year 1995. Such obligations shall be redeemed by the 
     Secretary from appropriations authorized by this section. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall purchase any such 
     obligations, and for such purpose he may use as a public debt 
     transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities 
     issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as now or hereafter 
     in force. The purposes for which securities may be issued 
     under such Act are extended to include any purchase of notes 
     or other obligations issued under the subsection. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury may sell any such obligations at 
     such times and price and upon such terms and conditions as he 
     shall determine in his discretion. All purchases, 
     redemptions, and sales of such obligations by such Secretary 
     shall be treated as public debt transactions of the United 
     States.

                     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] 
     $539,798,000 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] 
     $232,615,000 of the amount provided herein shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1997.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

              (including rescission and 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] $11,500,000, 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 for which are in excess of [$10,000,000] 
     $11,500,000 in fiscal year 1995 for ``Highway-Related Safety 
     Grants'': Provided further, That of the funds authorized for 
     section 402 highway safety programs in section 1003(a)(7) of 
     Public Law 102-240, $20,000,000 in unobligated contract 
     authority is rescinded.

                          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] $17,543,150,000 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] $75,000,000 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] $352,055,000, 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), 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 
     102-388, $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 
     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), 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] $128,887,000, of which 
     [$29,891,000] $70,000,000 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] 
     $16,421,000, of which [$1,300,000] $1,508,000 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.

                     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.

                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, [$47,067,000] $48,079,000, of 
     which [$2,500,000] $2,623,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses including grants for railroad 
     research and development, [$17,145,000] $20,985,000, 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] $230,000,000, to remain available 
     until [September 30, 1997] expended.

            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] title V of such Act 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 and 
     track and signal improvements.

          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] $622,000,000, of which [$526,700,000] 
     $392,000,000 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] $230,000,000, 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] losses for state-supported rail services 
     authorized under section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service 
     Act, as amended.

               Mandatory Passenger Rail Service Payments

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to pay 
     obligations and liabilities of the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation, $150,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That this amount is available only 
     for the payment of--
       (1) tax liabilities under section 3221 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 due in fiscal year 1995 in excess of 
     amounts needed to fund benefits for individuals who retired 
     from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and for 
     their beneficiaries;
       (2) obligations of the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation under section 358(a) of title 45, United States 
     Code, due in fiscal year 1995 in excess of its obligations 
     calculated on an experience-rated basis; and
       (3) obligations of the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation due under section 3321 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project

       For grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     engineering, design and construction activities to enable the 
     James A. Farley Post Office in New York City to be used as a 
     train station and commercial center: Provided, That the 
     Secretary may retain from these funds such amounts as the 
     Secretary shall deem appropriate to undertake the 
     environmental and historic preservation analyses associated 
     with this project: Provided further, That none of these funds 
     may be expended for construction activities (except for 
     emergency and short-term and related repairs and 
     environmental restoration) until the participants have 
     entered into a binding agreement satisfactory to the 
     Secretary that contains financial and related commitments 
     from the participants sufficient to ensure the completion of 
     the project: Provided further, That no funds provided under 
     this head shall be available for construction until the 
     Secretary submits a report to the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations regarding the financing of necessary 
     improvements to the existing Pennsylvania Station and the 
     financing of the operating and capital costs accruing to the 
     commuter rail authorities operating in said station as a 
     result of this redevelopment project.

                     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


                     (including transfer of funds)

       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] 
     $1,350,000,000: Provided, That no more than [$2,506,050,000] 
     $2,500,000,000 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] $730,000,000 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] Provided further, That of the funds 
     made available under this head, $10,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Federal Transit Administration's Transit 
     Planning and Research account and be administered in 
     accordance with section 26(b) of the Federal Transit Act, as 
     amended: Provided further, That 10 percent of the funds 
     apportioned to each grantee under section 9 of such act shall 
     be available for obligation only after the grantee certifies 
     to the Secretary that that portion of its funds will only be 
     used for eligible projects that will contribute to decreased 
     traffic congestion in urban areas.

                   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.

                          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] $760,000,000; 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] $370,000,000; and there 
     shall be available for new fixed guideway systems, 
     [$646,670,000] $595,000,000, 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] $146,000,000 for the New Jersey Urban Core 
     project;
       [$10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor 
     project;
       [$45,000,000] $62,540,000 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] $111,700,000 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 intermodal 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] $4,690,000 for the St. Louis Metro Link LRT 
     project;
       $10,000,000 for the Maryland Central Corridor LRT project;
       $37,300,000 for the Boston, Massachusetts to Portland, 
     Maine Transportation Corridor Program, of which $3,600,000 
     shall be available for the Boston to Portland element of the 
     Program, and $33,700,000 shall be available for the Central 
     Artery Rail Link element of the Program;
       $24,000,000 for the MARC Commuter Rail 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]
       $1,100,000 for the Boston metropolitan ``Urban Ring'' 
     project;
       $8,320,000 for the Burlington to Charlotte, Vermont 
     commuter rail project;
       $2,500,000 for the Burlington to Gloucester, New Jersey 
     line;
       $6,000,000 for the Dulles Corridor rail project;
       $750,000 for the New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts 
     commuter rail extensions;
       $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Riverfront LRT downriver 
     extension; and
       $5,100,000 for the West Shore Line, New Jersey.

                       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] 
     $38,530,000, 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] $10,150,000, 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] 
     $26,738,000, 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] $38,877,000; 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] $36,445,500 shall be derived 
     from the Pipeline Safety Fund, of which [$14,323,000] 
     $17,876,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That from amounts made available herein from the 
     Pipeline Safety Fund not to exceed $1,500,000 to be available 
     until expended, the Secretary may make grants to States as 
     well as operators of one-call notification systems and non-
     profit organizations for development, establishment, and 
     promotion of pipeline damage prevention programs and one-call 
     notification systems.

                     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] $11,200,000 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.]

                    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] $40,500,000.

                                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] $37,046,000, 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, $30,302,000: 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.

                   Payments for Directed Rail Service


                      (limitation on obligations)

       None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available 
     for the execution of programs the obligations for which can 
     reasonably be expected to exceed $475,000 for directed rail 
     service authorized under 49 U.S.C. 11125 or any other Act.

                        PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

                      Panama Canal Revolving Fund

       For administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission, 
     including not to exceed $11,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses of the Board; not to exceed $5,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses of the 
     Secretary; and not to exceed $30,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses of the Administrator, 
     $50,030,000, to be derived from the Panama Canal Revolving 
     Fund: Provided, That none of these funds may be used for the 
     planning or execution of nonadministrative and capital 
     programs the obligations for which are in excess of 
     $540,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 1995: Provided further, That 
     funds available to the Panama Canal Commission shall be 
     available for the purchase of not to exceed forty-three 
     passenger motor vehicles for replacement only (including 
     large heavy-duty vehicles used to transport Commission 
     personnel across the Isthmus of Panama), the purchase price 
     of which shall not exceed $19,500 per vehicle.

                      [DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                 [Rebate of Saint Lawrence Seaway Tolls


                    [(harbor maintenance trust fund)

       [For rebate of the United States portion of tolls paid for 
     use of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, pursuant to Public Law 99-
     662, $9,319,000, to remain available until expended and to be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, of which not 
     to exceed $132,000 shall be available for expenses of 
     administering the rebates.]

             WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

             Interest Payments and Repayments of Principal

       For payment of obligations incurred pursuant to Public Law 
     96-184 and the Initial Bond Repayment Participation 
     Agreement, $664,666,667, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be used only to repay principal to the Federal 
     Financing Bank for the Washington Metrorail construction 
     loan; and in addition, such amounts as are necessary for 
     payment to the Federal Financing Bank, of accrued interest 
     and premium, if any, for such loan.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Funds for the Panama Canal Commission may be 
     apportioned notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1341 to the extent 
     necessary to permit payment of such pay increases for 
     officers or employees as may be authorized by administrative 
     action pursuant to law that are not in excess of statutory 
     increases granted for the same period in corresponding rates 
     of compensation for other employees of the government in 
     comparable positions.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available (1) except as otherwise authorized by the Act of 
     September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 236-244), for expenses of 
     primary and secondary schooling for dependents of Federal 
     Aviation Administration personnel stationed outside the 
     continental United States at costs for any given area not in 
     excess of those of the Department of Defense for the same 
     area, when it is determined by the Secretary that the 
     schools, if any, available in the locality are unable to 
     provide adequately for the education of such dependents, and 
     (2) for transportation of said dependents between schools 
     serving the area that they attend and their places of 
     residence when the Secretary, under such regulations as may 
     be prescribed, determines that such schools are not 
     accessible by public means of transportation on a regular 
     basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for 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 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds for the Panama Canal Commission 
     may be expended unless in conformance with the Panama Canal 
     Treaties of 1977 and any law implementing those treaties.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for the planning or implementation of any change in the 
     current federal status of the Volpe National Transportation 
     Systems Center, and none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the implementation of any change in the current 
     federal status of the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research 
     Center: Provided, That the Secretary may plan for further 
     development of the Volpe National Transportation Systems 
     Center and for other compatible uses of the Center's real 
     property: Provided further, That any such planning does not 
     alter the federal status of the Center's research and 
     development operation: Provided further, That employment at 
     the Center shall not exceed 536 full time equivalent staff 
     years in fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 1995 the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways by allocation in the ratio which sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highways that 
     are apportioned or allocated to each State for such fiscal 
     year bear to the total of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for Federal-aid highways that are apportioned or 
     allocated to all the States for such fiscal year.
       (b) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1994, 
     no State shall obligate more than 25 per centum of the amount 
     distributed to such State under subsection (a), and the total 
     of all State obligations during such period shall not exceed 
     15 per centum of the total amount distributed to all States 
     under such subsection.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent 
     lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid 
     highways that have been apportioned to a State[, except in 
     those instances in which a State indicates its intention to 
     lapse sums apportioned under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 
     23, United States Code];
       (2) after August 1, 1995, revise a distribution of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) if a State will not 
     obligate the amount distributed during that fiscal year and 
     redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 103(e)(4), 104, 144, of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240;
       (3) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a), Title 23 U.S.C., the Federal 
     lands highway program, the intelligent vehicle highway 
     systems program, and amounts made available under sections 
     1040, 1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023, and 6024, of Public 
     Law 102-240: Provided, That amounts made available under 
     section 6005 of Public Law 102-240 shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs under the head ``Federal-Aid 
     Highways'' in this Act; and
       (4) notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     withhold from initial distribution the fiscal year 1995 
     Federal-aid highways obligation limitation set aside for 
     Interstate Construction Discretionary projects: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall distribute only after August 1, 
     1995, such obligation limitation withheld in accordance with 
     this section to those States receiving Interstate 
     Construction Discretionary allocations.
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1994, 
     the aggregate amount of obligations under section 157 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for projects covered under 
     section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1978, section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981, 
     sections 131(b), 131(j), and 404 of Public Law 97-424, 
     sections 1061, 1103 through 1108, 4008, and 6023(b)(8) and 
     6023(b)(10) of Public Law 102-240, and for projects 
     authorized by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 100-17, shall 
     not exceed $325,155,150.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1995, 
     the aggregate amount which may be obligated by all States 
     pursuant to paragraph (d) shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of funds apportioned or allocated to all 
     States--
       (1) under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-240, and
       (2) for highway assistance projects under section 103(e)(4) 
     of title 23, United States Code,

     which would not be obligated in fiscal year 1995 if the total 
     amount of the obligation limitation provided for such fiscal 
     year in this Act were utilized.
       (f) Paragraph (e) shall not apply to any State which on or 
     after August 1, 1995, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1995 reduced under 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred and ten 
     political and Presidential appointees in the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided, That none of the personnel covered 
     by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 
     the Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 312. Not to exceed $850,000 of the funds provided in 
     this Act for the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for the necessary expenses of advisory committees.
       Sec. 313. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under section 21 of the Federal Transit Act, 
     previously made available for obligation, or to any other 
     authority previously made available for obligation under the 
     discretionary grants program.
       [Sec. 314. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.]
       Sec. 314. For the purpose of carrying out a demonstration 
     of the construction of highways in high priority corridors, 
     authorized by section 1105(f) of Public Law 102-240, there is 
     hereby appropriated $6,000,000 for the Secretary to enter 
     into an agreement to make a loan or loans not to exceed 
     $40,000,000 to the public entity or entities with the 
     statutory duty to construct such facilities: Provided, That 
     such loan or loans shall be repaid by direct repayment no 
     later than the fifth Federal fiscal year following the year 
     in which a loan was made. Funds made available by this 
     section shall not be subject to any limitation.
       Sec. 315. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or from 
     available unobligated balances.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration instrument landing systems (along 
     with associated approach lighting equipment and runway visual 
     range equipment) which conform to Federal Aviation 
     Administration design and performance specifications, the 
     purchase of which was assisted by a Federal airport aid 
     program, airport development aid program or airport 
     improvement program grant. The Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall accept such equipment, which shall 
     thereafter be operated and maintained by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract or (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the government's liability or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the federal government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 319. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     made available for planning and executing a passenger 
     manifest program by the Department of Transportation that 
     only applies to United States flag carriers.
       [Sec. 320. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the provisions 
     of section 1038(d) of Public Law 102-240.]
       Sec. 320. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of 
     the Secretary to any other Office of the Office of the 
     Secretary: Provided, That no appropriation shall be increased 
     or decreased by more than 12 per centum by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That any such transfer shall be 
     submitted for approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 321. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Discretionary grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 1997, shall be made available for other 
     projects under section 3 of the Federal Transit Act, as 
     amended.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, that remain available 
     for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under 
     the most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
       Sec. 323. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Transportation (excluding the Maritime 
     Administration) during fiscal year 1995, $65,120,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall allocate the 
     amount of budgetary resources canceled among the Department's 
     accounts (excluding the Maritime Administration) available 
     for procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       [Sec. 324. Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 103-122 
     for railroad-highway crossings projects, $20,000,000 shall be 
     available for costs, not to exceed 80 percent, of a project 
     to reduce rail-highway conflicts on M-59 near Pontiac, 
     Michigan, and a project on Bristol Road near Flint, Michigan, 
     including $500,000 which shall be made available to improve 
     and upgrade Maple Road at Bishop Airport, Michigan: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in Public Law 94-387 for 
     railroad-highway demonstration projects, $486,000 in 
     unobligated balances shall be made available for the rail 
     relocation project in Lafayette, Indiana.]
       Sec. 324. For necessary expenses to carry out a pilot 
     project to provide direct financial assistance by contract, 
     to a community group incorporated for the purpose of 
     protecting the scenic qualities of a designated scenic byway, 
     to demonstrate the effect of alternative highway designs on 
     the scenic and historic qualities of a scenic byway, a sum of 
     $100,000: Provided, That such amount be derived from moneys 
     available for contract programs for a national scenic byways 
     study made available by Public Law 101-164 (Federal Highway 
     Administration Limitation on General Operating Expenses) as 
     further referenced by Conference Report 101-315 and not 
     expended as of the date of this Act.
       [Sec. 325. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     made available to any State, municipality or subdivision 
     thereof that diverts revenue generated by a public airport in 
     violation of the provisions of the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.]
       Sec. 325. None of the funds provided in this Act for the 
     United States Coast Guard shall be available for the 
     inspection of Department of Defense vessels excluding those 
     under the Ready Reserve Force and the National Defense 
     Reserve Fleet after January 1, 1995.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       [Sec. 327. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to design, construct, erect, modify 
     or otherwise place any sign in any State relating to any 
     speed limit, distance, or other measurement on any highway if 
     such sign establishes such speed limit, distance, or other 
     measurement using the metric system.]
       Sec. 327. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 
     tolls collected for motor vehicles on any bridge connecting 
     the boroughs of Brooklyn, New York, and Staten Island, New 
     York, shall continue to be collected for only those vehicles 
     exiting from such bridge in Staten Island.
       Sec. 328. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     made available for any airport development project, or 
     projects, proposed in any grant application submitted in 
     accordance with title V of Public Law 97-248 (96 Stat. 671; 
     49 U.S.C. App. 2201 et seq.) to any public agency, public 
     authority, or public airport that imposes a fee for any 
     passenger enplaning at the airport in any instance where the 
     passenger did not pay for the air transportation which 
     resulted in such enplanement, including any case in which the 
     passenger obtained the ticket for the air transportation with 
     a frequent flyer award coupon.
       [Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     continue the federally-funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC) relationship between the Federal Aviation 
     Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems 
     Development after March 31, 1995: Provided, That the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may continue this work after March 
     31, 1995 only by full and open competition among all 
     interested parties, including the Center for Advanced 
     Aviation Systems Development.]
       Sec. 329. (a) The Secretary of Transportation may enter 
     into grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions 
     with any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
     States, any unit of State or local government, any 
     educational institution, and any other entity in execution of 
     the Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the 
     Defense Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance 
     Act of 1992 and related legislation.
       (b) The authority provided in this section may be exercised 
     without regard to section 3324 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 330. Funds provided in this Act for the Department of 
     Transportation working capital fund (WCF) shall be reduced by 
     [$13,253,000] $6,105,000, which limits fiscal year 1995 WCF 
     obligational authority for elements of the Department of 
     Transportation funded in this Act to no more than 
     [$88,750,000] $94,855,000: Provided, That such reductions 
     from the budget request shall be allocated by the Department 
     of Transportation to each appropriations account in 
     proportion to the amount included from each account for the 
     working capital fund.
       Sec. 331. Funds provided in this Act for bonuses and cash 
     awards for employees of the Department of Transportation 
     shall be reduced by [$6,012,680] $5,169,000, which limits 
     fiscal year 1995 obligational authority to no more than 
     $25,500,000 $26,344,000: Provided, That this provision shall 
     be applied to funds for Senior Executive Service bonuses, 
     merit pay, and other bonuses and cash awards.
       [Sec. 332. Section 127(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``With respect 
     to the State of Maryland, laws and regulations in effect on 
     June 1, 1993, shall be applicable for the purposes of this 
     subsection.''.]
       Sec. 332. The Federal Aviation Administration is directed 
     to install a Terminal Doppler Weather Radar at Charlotte, 
     North Carolina in fiscal year 1995, and to commission that 
     radar no later than December 31, 1995.
       Sec. 333. Funds received by the Research and Special 
     Programs Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training and for reports' 
     publication and dissemination may be credited to the Research 
     and Special Programs account.
       Sec. 334. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses'' account, the 
     Federal Transit Administration's ``Transit Planning and 
     Research'' account, and to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's ``Railroad Safety'' account, except for 
     State rail safety inspectors participating in training 
     pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 
     1970.
       [Sec. 335. (a) Subsection (b) of section 1045 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 1994) is amended to read as follows:
       [``(b) Eligibility for Federal Assistance.--
       [``(1) General rule.--Upon approval of any substitute 
     project or projects under subsection (a)--
       [``(A) the costs of construction of the eligible transitway 
     project for which such project or projects are substituted 
     shall not be eligible for funds authorized under section 
     108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956; and
       [``(B) a sum equal to the amount that would have been 
     apportioned to the State of Wisconsin on October 1, 1994, 
     under section 104(b)(5)(A) of title 23, United States Code, 
     if the Secretary had not approved such project or projects 
     shall be available to the Secretary from the Highway Trust 
     Fund to incur obligations for the Federal share of the costs 
     of such substitute project or projects.
       [``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for obligation on and 
     after October 1, 1994. Amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall remain available until expended and shall be 
     subject to any limitation on obligations for Federal-aid 
     highways established by law.
       [``(3) Applicability of title 23 u.s.c.-- Amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1)(B) shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; 
     except that the Federal share of the cost of any project 
     carried out with such funds shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 103(e)(4)(D) of such title.''.
       [(b) Conforming Amendments.--
       [(1) Subsection (c).--The second sentence of subsection (c) 
     of section 1045 of such Act is amended by striking ``the 
     authority of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States 
     Code,'' and inserting ``section 21(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Transit Act''.
       [(2) Subsection (d)(1).--Subsection (d)(1) of section 1045 
     of such Act is amended by striking ``project for'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end thereof and 
     inserting ``transit project.''.
       [(3) Subsection (d).--Subsection (d) of section 1045 of 
     such Act is amended by striking paragraph (3) and by 
     redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       [(c) Reduction of Interstate Construction Authorization.--
     Section 108(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is 
     amended by striking ``$1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996'' and inserting ``$1,800,000,000, 
     reduced by the amount made available under section 
     1045(b)(1)(B) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991, for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996''.]
       Sec. 335. Section 12(c)(1) of the Federal Transit Act is 
     amended by inserting ``payments for the capital portions of 
     rail trackage rights agreements,'' after ``rights-of-way,''.
       Sec. 336. (a) Federal Line of Credit.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out a demonstration of the construction of public 
     toll roads in Orange County, California, authorized by 
     section 129(d) of title 23, United States Code, there is 
     hereby appropriated $8,000,000 for the Secretary to enter 
     into an agreement to make a line of credit available, with a 
     principal amount not to exceed $120,000,000 to the public 
     entity or entities with the statutory authority to construct 
     such facilities.
       (b) Effective Period.--The line of credit under this 
     section shall be available for draws during the period 
     beginning on the date of completion of construction and 
     ending on the last day of the tenth calendar year following 
     the date construction of the facilities is completed.
       (c) Purposes.--The line of credit under this section shall 
     be available to pay the costs of extraordinary repair and 
     replacement of the facilities, unexpected Federal or State 
     environmental restrictions, operation and maintenance 
     expenses of the facilities, and debt service on tax-exempt or 
     taxable obligations financing the facilities.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) Capital expenditures.--With respect to capital 
     expenditures, draws on the line of credit under this section 
     shall only be made if and to the extent proceeds from the 
     sale of the obligations issued by the public entity or 
     entities which otherwise would be available for such purposes 
     are exhausted, or are otherwise unavailable for the payment 
     of such capital expenditures.
       (2) Expenses.--With respect to expenses, including 
     operation and maintenance expenses and debt service, a draw 
     on the line of credit under this section shall only be made 
     if revenues from toll operations and capitalized interest are 
     insufficient (or are otherwise unavailable) for such 
     purposes.
       (3) Per year.--No more than 10 percent of the total 
     principal amount of the line of credit under this section 
     shall be available for draws in any one year.
       (4) Third party creditor rights.--No third party creditor 
     of the public entity or entities shall have any right against 
     the Federal Government with respect to draws on the line of 
     credit under this section.
       (5) Availability for particular costs.--There is no 
     guaranteed availability of proceeds of the line of credit 
     under this section for the payment of any particular cost of 
     the public entity or entities which might be financed under 
     this section.
       (e) Interest Rate and Repayment Period.--Any draws (except 
     for operation and maintenance expenses) on the line of credit 
     under this section shall accrue interest at the 30-year 
     United States Treasury bond rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 30 years; 
     except that any draws under the line of credit for operation 
     and maintenance expenses shall accrue interest at the 3-year 
     United States Treasury note rate beginning on the date such 
     draws are made and shall be repaid in not more than 3 years.
       [Sec. 337. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY--
     Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby increased by $26,300,000, 
     of which amount $8,300,000 shall be derived from amounts 
     provided for in this Act under the heading ``INTERSTATE 
     COMMERCE COMMISSION--Salaries and Expenses''.]
       Sec. 337. In addition to amounts otherwise provided by this 
     Act, $5,425,000 shall be available for ``Interstate Commerce 
     Commission, Salaries and Expenses'' solely for the discharge 
     of liabilities, including severance pay, under title 5 of the 
     United States Code to employees separated from the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission on or after October 1, 1994.
       Sec. 338. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 339. Saint Lawrence Seaway Toll Collection.--(a) 
     Section 13 of the Act of May 13, 1954, ch. 201 (33 U.S.C. 
     988a), added by section 805(a)(4) of Title XIV of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662 (100 
     Stat. 4272), is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 13. WAIVER OF COLLECTION OF CHARGES OR TOLLS.

       ``(a) Notwithstanding section 12 of this Act or any other 
     provision of law, the Corporation shall not collect any 
     charge or toll established pursuant to section 12 of this Act 
     with respect to a commercial vessel (as defined in section 
     4462(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
       ``(b) The Corporation will maintain a record of the annual 
     amount of each charge or toll that would have been collected 
     with respect to each such commercial vessel if it were not 
     for paragraph (a) of this section.''.
       (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 19 of 
     title 33 is amended by striking:

``Sec. 988a Rebate of charges and tolls.
``(a) Transfer of revenues to Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
``(b) Certifications to Secretary of the Treasury.''

     and adding in lieu thereof:

``Sec. 988a Waiver of Collection of Charges or Tolls.
``(a) Waiver of collection of charges or tolls.
``(b) Record of annual amount.''.

       Sec. 340. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     unspent balance of funds previously appropriated for the 
     Meadowbrook Parkway project shall be available for the Loop 
     Parkway Bridge rehabilitation project.
       Sec. 341. Not more than $1,707,000 of funds provided for 
     Coast Guard Operating Expenses under this Act shall be 
     available for Voluntary Separation Incentive, Special 
     Separation Benefit, early retirement, and other separation 
     and transition benefits under Chapter 58 of title 10, U.S.C. 
     for active duty members in fiscal year 1995: Provided, That 
     funds for such benefits shall only become available if 
     authorized in law.
       Sec. 342. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     made available under Public Law 103-122, the Fiscal Year 1994 
     Transportation Appropriations Act, for the domestic fuel cell 
     development program under the Federal Transit 
     Administration's Discretionary Grants account shall be 
     transferred to that agency's Transit Planning and Research 
     account and be administered in accordance with section 6 of 
     the Federal Transit Act, as amended.
       Sec. 343. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $33,700,000 of funds provided in this Act for the Portland to 
     Boston Transportation Corridor Program shall be made 
     available to the Massachusetts Executive Office of 
     Transportation and Construction for construction of 
     excavation support walls and right-of-way for the Central 
     Artery Rail Link connection between North and South Stations. 
     This element of the Program is separate and distinct from the 
     Transportation Corridor element, and shall not affect the 
     environmental, financial, or construction work performed in 
     connection with that element of the Program.
       Sec. 344. Section 211(b) of the National Driver Register 
     Act of 1982 as amended, (23 U.S.C. 401 note), is further 
     amended by inserting after ``1994'' ``and $2,550,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995.''
       Sec. 345. Notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 631, et seq. and 10 
     U.S.C. 2301, et seq. as amended, the United States Coast 
     Guard acquisition of 47-foot Motor Life Boats for fiscal 
     years 1995 through 2000 shall be subject to full and open 
     competition for all U.S. shipyards. Accordingly, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulations (FAR) (including but not limited to 
     FAR Part 19), shall not apply to the extent they are 
     inconsistent with a full and open competition.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to proceed with H.R. 
4556, the transportation appropriations bill for 1995.
  This bill is very tight this year because of the freeze in 
discretionary spending in the fiscal year 1995 budget.
  The bill, however, makes investments in our infrastructure that are 
essential. This spending creates jobs, it improves and expands our 
transportation networks, and helps the economy. It helps our country be 
more competitive since investments in infrastructure helps move people 
and goods in the most efficient manner, and permits us to produce and 
to deliver our goods at lower cost.
  This type of spending has both short- and long-term benefits. The 
safe and efficient movement of our goods and people make for a more 
vibrant and competitive economy, that improves our standard of living 
and keeps us internationally competitive.
  This subcommittee had a discretionary spending ceiling of $13.734 
billion in budget authority and $36.6 billion in outlays. As scored by 
CBO, any amendment changing budget authority and outlays in the bill 
will require offsets.
  In this bill, the committee attempted to move forward on some of the 
President's transportation priorities. He had called for increased 
investment in a number of areas: Increases in the highway obligation 
ceiling; the capital part of the mass transit formula grants; the FAA's 
facilities and equipment account; Coast Guard capital expenses; and 
Amtrak capital assistance. This bill makes a downpayment on many of 
these investments.
  The bill is more than simply bricks and mortar. It invests in a 
better tomorrow. Research funding is provided in a number of new and 
exciting technologies that will have American companies in the 
forefront in such areas as intelligent vehicle/highway systems; 
alternative-fuel transit vehicles; composite materials for bridge 
construction; high-speed rail development; new radars and air traffic 
control systems; and new defense technology conversion.
  The bill rejects, however, some of the President's proposals. He 
recommended deep cuts, for example, in transit operating assistance. We 
turned that recommendation down and, within very tight overall funding 
limits, we restored most of the cuts. It is important that we keep 
transit affordable, to help relieve urban congestion, to reduce air 
pollution, and to reduce fuel consumption.
  Now I would like to present a few highlights of the bill. For 
example, for the Coast Guard, the bill provides $3.67 billion in new 
budget authority. The House-passed bill cut the Coast Guard's request 
for operating expenses by more than $50 million. I am greatly concerned 
about the potential impact of this cut on the Coast Guard's ability to 
execute its many critical missions.
  Mr. President, over the years, we continue to expand the obligations 
for the Coast Guard, to ask them to deal with the refugees from Haiti, 
to deal with pollution control, to deal with drug interdiction, to deal 
with maintaining an ever busier marine industry. So, Mr. President, we 
could not abide the cut in operating expenses, and the bill before you 
restores roughly three-quarters of this cut.
  Total new funding for Coast Guard acquisition will be $370 million. 
That is in order to help the Coast Guard restore its deteriorating 
shore facilities and replace aging vessels and aircraft. And we also 
rejected the President's request to eliminate the boat safety program 
and to reduce the Coast Guard Selected Reserve below 8,000 members. We 
need that Reserve to be able to call upon in times of crisis. They are 
a very valuable asset.
  In the Federal Highway Administration, I would like to note that the 
bill before us has an obligation ceiling of $17.5 billion, not 
including the programs that are exempt from the obligation ceiling, 
which adds another $2.3 billion. In total, this is an increase of 
approximately $104 million over last year's level. I believe that this 
demonstrates the committee's ability, while working within a tight 
funding environment, to make the needed investments in our Nation's 
crumbling roads and bridges. The net result of our work should help 
relieve congestion and provide an efficient, safe highway system. This 
obligation ceiling is distributed according to the prescribed formula 
contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 
better known as ISTEA. Thus, the increased spending will benefit every 
State in the country.
  Amtrak. For Amtrak, the bill contains $392 million for operations, 
$150 million in mandatory payments, and $230 million for capital 
grants. The bill also includes funding for improvements to the 
Northeast corridor, including the electrification of the final segment 
from New Haven to Boston. That electrification should result in taking 
about 2 hours off of the train ride from Boston to New York and should 
permit them to render the kind of service that is expected to increase 
riders substantially.
  For the FAA, the bill provides an increase of approximately $11 
million for operations over the 1994 enacted level. This includes 
funding for the hard-to-staff air traffic controller locations, and it 
fully funds the requested levels for safety inspectors, certification 
personal, and civil aviation security staff. In the facilities and 
equipment area, the bill provides approximately $2.1 billion, and most 
of this is going to go to the modernization and expansion of our 
national air space system by upgrading our air route traffic control 
centers, airport towers, and flight service facilities. In the FAA 
research program, the bill provides $264 million, which will support 
research and development in such areas as automated explosive and 
sabotage detection systems, aging aircraft review, satellite 
technologies, aviation weather technologies, pilot fatigue, and 
capacity management.
  For the airport improvement grants, the bill contains $1.45 billion.
  Finally, for the transit area, the bill contains transit operating 
assistance at $730 million, $595 million for new starts in transit, 
$760 million for modernization of our older transit systems, and $370 
million for discretionary bus purchases and facilities.
  The distribution of section 9 funds in the rail modernization account 
follows the prescribed formulas contained in ISTEA. My proposal has 
earmarked less than half of the bus funding, leaving the majority to 
the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation.
  Mr. President, as many of the Members know, the House voted to 
eliminate funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission by more than 
40 votes. The bill before us does not propose the elimination of the 
ICC. However, it does propose a substantial reduction in the agency's 
overall budget. There are several proposals currently under 
consideration by the appropriate authorizing committees to reduce 
certain functions of the ICC. In addition, I believe there are 
opportunities for substantial streamlining in the agency staffing, 
while maintaining the agency's most critical mission. As such, the bill 
before us cuts the agency's operating budget by $13.525 million; it is 
a reduction of 31 percent. The bill also calls for a staffing reduction 
at the agency of 31 percent. A staffing cut of this kind is going to 
require the committee to separately appropriate roughly $5.4 million 
solely for severance pay for these people who retire or are terminated.
  Mr. President, all Members should know that this is a very frugal 
allocation for the ICC. It will no longer be business as usual at the 
Interstate Commerce Commission. Substantial changes must be made, and 
the authorizing committees will need to implement serious reforms.
  I thank all Senators for their support and forbearance through this 
very difficult process. We received about 700 requests from 84 
Senators. We received over $1.7 billion in requests for specific 
highway projects, for which we could only provide $350 million worth of 
funding.
  I want to stress that point, Mr. President: We received requests from 
84 Senators amouting to over $1.7 billion in requests for particular 
highway projects in their States, but we could only provide $350 
million in funding.
  Additionally, we received over $2 billion in requests for designated 
transit projects, for which we could provide only $700 million.
  Once again I thank my colleagues for their forbearance and for their 
understanding. Most of these are worthwhile projects that need 
attention, and we have been unable to develop the funding to support 
them.
  As we have done in the past, we were required to generally limit the 
allocation of funds to those projects that were not funded in the House 
appropriations bill. As other appropriations subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members know, this is often the only way to give standing in 
conference to the Senate's priority projects. Members need to know that 
projects that were included in the House bill were not deleted with any 
prejudice or malice intended toward the projects. We did not, in our 
bill, fund those programs that were already in the House bill, with 
rare exception.
  There is language in the committee report that clearly states our 
expectation to give all projects in both the House and the Senate bill 
consideration in conference. It will be a contentious debate, but that 
is what we have to do with the spare resources that we have. We will be 
consulting with all Senators to identify their priorities as we 
approach conference.
  However, the Transportation Subcommittee, like all other 
appropriations subcommittees, simply does not have enough money to 
repeat the projects funded in the House bill and also at the same time 
to be able to fund additional projects of concern and interest to the 
Senate.
  Once again, Mr. President, I thank all of the Senators for their 
assistance with this bill. I particularly want to thank my colleague 
and friend from the State of New York, Senator D'Amato. He is the 
ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee and his input was 
invaluable, his support essential. I look forward to continuing to work 
with him as we shepherd this bill through conference and get it to the 
President's desk.
  I also want to thank the chairman and the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee, Chairman Robert Byrd and Senator Mark 
Hatfield, for all of their help at the full committee in seeing to the 
expeditious consideration of this bill.
  I would again note that the bills, as scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office is at its 602(b) allocation for both budget authority and 
outlays. As such, any amendment affecting funding levels in this bill 
will have to be fully offset in both budget authority and outlays.
  At this time, Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, Senator 
D'Amato, for any statements that he might want to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I thank the 
chairman, Senator Lautenberg, for his cooperation and for his efforts 
in attempting to deal with a very difficult situation. I support H.R. 
4556, the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies.
  H.R. 4556 completely exhausts the 602(b) transportation budget 
allocation of $13.734 billion in discretionary budget authority and 
$36.6 billion in discretionary outlays.
  Our committee strove to meet the department's basic funding needs 
while supporting Senate initiatives as best we could.
  Let me say that this was a tough, tough bill. It is illustrated by 
the fact that some deep cuts were made, cuts in programs that I have 
fought for over the years and that are important and many that are 
essential.
  For example, a 9-percent cut was made in transit operating aid, 
reducing it from $802 million last year to $730 million. A 14 percent 
cut was made in airport improvement grants, down from $1.69 billion to 
$1.45 billion, and a $183 million cut in Federal Aviation 
Administration air traffic modernization efforts.
  Let me stress that the Interstate Commerce Commission budget was cut 
by 31 percent. The chairman, Senator Lautenberg, and his staff were 
very, very supportive of this effort. We worked on this together. The 
House zeroed it out. But we thought we had to deal with this in a 
manner that would provide for an orderly transition of 
responsibilities. After we have done our work, it is the the 
responsibility of the Committee on Commerce to write authorizing 
legislation to provide the details of this transition. We expect 
Senator Exon to offer legislation later on during this session of the 
103d Congress. But the ICC was cut by 31 percent, a substantial amount.
  So, this is not an easy budget. We have made some very deep cuts and 
tried to meet the essential programs and needs of our Nation's 
transportation systems.
  I have to say that anyone can second-guess our funding decisions, but 
the fact of the matter is that we have done the best we can with scarce 
resources. We have moved to enhance safety, mobility, accessibility, 
and to reduce congestion and pollution.
  We provided $13 million to continue the air traffic controllers' pay 
demonstration project that has succeeded in attracting and retaining 
fully qualified controllers in hard-to-staff locations.
  Try to get an air traffic controller to come to New York, one who is 
fully qualified. Or try to get one to come to Chicago, or Los Angeles 
or San Francisco. These are high-cost areas, very high-cost areas. Why 
would you want to work in an area where the cost of living is 30 to 40 
percent higher, where the stress factor is 100 percent or 200 percent 
higher. These controllers have to administer incredible volumes of 
traffic in complex airspace. They deserve to be recognized with a pay 
differential reflecting the type of work performance the public demands 
of them.
  I have to tell you Senator Lautenberg has done a great job on this 
issue. Maybe the fact is because we fly into one of those busy air 
corridors, in the metropolitan New York/New Jersey area, and we 
understand the problem firsthand.
  You know, when you are up there in an air traffic holding pattern and 
your life is on the line, you want to know that you have a fully 
qualified controller down there handling traffic; one who is not angry, 
who is not having trouble making his or her mortgage payments or 
finding a place to live, and who does not feel he or she is being taken 
advantage of. Maybe it is somewhat of a parochial interest that that 
has stirred us to recognize the plight of these people, but we do. We 
do.
  Senator Lautenberg has been a leader on air traffic controller 
matters. I am pleased that we have provided these funds, and sometimes 
you have to fight for it. It is something the American public does not 
recognize, but you want to make sure when you are talking about safety 
that you recognize and pay people for the direct, tremendously 
difficult, and trying tasks they perform often under extraordinary cir-
cumstances.
  We did not just come and simply cut programs. We tried to make 
dollars available for programs that are essential and that make sense.
  One of the areas that we funded, which will be the subject of an 
amendment later by one of my colleagues, was the James A. Farley Post 
Office Building in New York City that will be the site of a new Amtrak 
station and commercial center.
  Why do we provide a new rail hub through these dollars?
  We are going to find that if we fail to act, then Amtrak is going to 
have to spend about $400 million of its own funds to improve the 
current Penn Station to accommodate the increased passenger volumes 
that will be created by 3-hour service between New York City and 
Boston. Amtrak would have to take those funds out of its capital 
budget. I do not see how that realistically can take place.
  So I just mention that to those who say, ``Well, you have undertaken 
some new programs and projects''; those who say, We must cut out 
highway demonstration projects, et cetera, because you are taking funds 
away from formula programs.
  Let me say, the House has provided $299 million for highway 
demonstration projects. The Senate must take care of the needs of its 
Members throughout the country, and recognize that all of the programs 
and projects that we have funded have either been authorized and/or are 
in the midst of being completed--there are no new starts here. Again, 
these are projects that have been authorized or they are programs and 
projects that we are completing.
  And so I say that this is a tight fiscal situation that we deal with. 
We have done our best under difficult circumstances.
  I want to commend not only the chairman but all the members of the 
subcommittee. And, in addition, I want to thank both the majority and 
minority staff. They have been extraordinary and diligent in their 
efforts. We are deeply appreciative.
  I intend to support this bill to the utmost.
  Thank you, and I yield the floor.


          statement on the transportation appropriations bill

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4556, the Transportation appropriations bill and has found that 
the bill is under its 602(b) budget authority allocation and under its 
602(b) outlay allocation.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator 
Lautenberg, and the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation 
Subcommittee, Senator D'Amato, on all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Transportation appropriations bill 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at the 
appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4556; FISCAL YEAR TRANSPORTATION
                  APPROPRIATIONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL                  
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Bill summary                          BA    Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill..............................   13,734   12,038
    Outlays from prior years appropriations...........  .......   24,595
    Permanent/advance appropriations..................        0        0
    Supplementals.....................................        0      -34
                                                       -----------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending................   13,734   36,600
                                                       =================
Mandatory totals......................................      571      574
Bill total............................................   14,305   37,174
Senate 602(b) allocation..............................   14,305   37,174
                                                       -----------------
      Difference......................................        0        0
                                                       =================
Discretionary totals above (+) or below (-):                            
    President's request...............................      522       -6
    House-passed bill.................................      156      158
    Senate-reported bill..............................  .......  .......
    Senate-passed bill................................  .......  .......
    Defense...........................................        0        0
    International Affairs.............................        0        0
    Domestic Discretionary............................   13,734   36,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during 
the Senate consideration of H.R. 4556, Mr. Craig Bone, a detailee to 
the subcommittee from the Department of Transportation, be granted the 
privileges of the floor both during consideration of the bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1995, 
and the conference report thereof.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
privileges of the floor be granted to Sara Smith, from the staff of 
Senator D'Amato, during the review and the consideration of H.R. 4556.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As usual, Mr. President, Senator D'Amato is right on 
target when he talks about programs affecting transportation. When he 
talks about the New York area, he is not simply referring to those who 
live in or near New York or New Jersey. Senator D'Amato is also 
referring to those who pass through the very active aviation centers 
like Chicago or Los Angeles. Invariably, because of the nature of the 
communities, living costs are higher. The one thing we want to do is to 
attract and keep quality controllers at these hard-to-staff locations.
  I often am in the second seat of a small airplane. I listen to the 
radio and talk on the radio to the towers and the en route flight 
service centers. You can hear the level of concern that is expressed in 
the voices of the people as they manage all that traffic. The last 
thing we want to do is to add to their concerns by not taking into 
consideration the difficult conditions under which they must work and 
the high cost of living in the hard-to-staff areas.
  So I thank Senator D'Amato for his comments.
  Mr. President, we are at a point in time when we are asking any of 
our colleagues who have amendments to please come to the floor and 
offer them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments 
be considered and agreed to en bloc and that they be considered as 
original text for the purpose of further amendments.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask that the chairman consider 
modifying his request so that two of the amendments would be kept open. 
On page 22, line 3, if we could hold that amendment open; and on page 
30, line 9, if we could hold that open, as well; and on page 31, line 
7, if we could keep that open.
  That is, on pages 30 and 31, line 9 through line 7 on page 31. It is 
entitled ``Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project.'' I understand 
Senator McCain wants to offer an amendment on that.
  And on page 22, if we if we could hold that open, as I mentioned, 
starting on line 3. Those two amendments.
  Senator Grassley has an amendment to offer on the inspector general. 
I do not believe we have to keep any amendments open for him on that. 
Both the majority and minority are going to accept that amendment.
  But with the exception of those two amendments, I would have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I so modify my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  If not, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were agreed to en bloc, with the 
following exceptions:
  On page 22, line 3; and on page 30, line 9, through page 31, line 7.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I further ask unanimous consent that no points of 
order be waived herein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We ask our colleagues, any of those who have 
amendments, to please come to the floor so that we can address them.
  The public is anxious to see us get our work done. They want to know 
what is going to happen with transportation funding in their 
communities. This is an essential bill to every State in the country. 
The last thing we need to do is contribute to the notion that things 
move here at a snail's pace.
  It is time to deal with this part of our agenda so we can talk up 
other bills waiting to receive consideration by the full Senate.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2331

 (Purpose: To require air carriers and foreign air carriers to notify 
the Secretary of Transportation of the aircraft disinsection practices 
                         of foreign countries)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending committee amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2331.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 346. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an air carrier or foreign air carrier may not engage in 
     foreign air transportation from the United States unless the 
     carrier has notified the Secretary of Transportation of the 
     aircraft disinsection practices, if any, in which the carrier 
     engages as a result of requirements imposed by a foreign 
     country.
       (2) The prohibition set forth in paragraph (1) shall take 
     effect on the date that is 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b)(1) An air carrier or foreign air carrier shall notify 
     the Secretary of any change in the aircraft disinsection 
     requirements of the carrier not later than 5 days after the 
     date on which the carrier first has knowledge of such change.
       (2) If the Secretary determines that a carrier has not 
     complied with the requirement set forth in paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may prohibit the carrier from engaging in whole or 
     in part in foreign air transportation from the United States. 
     The Secretary shall determine the period of any prohibition 
     imposed under this paragraph.
       (c) In this section, the terms ``air carrier'', ``foreign 
     air carrier'', and ``foreign air transportation'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in paragraphs (3), (22), and (24), 
     respectively, of section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301(3), (22), and (24)).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of my 
colleagues' time to explain what this amendment is about.
  It involves the spraying of pesticides on airplanes. Those are 
airplanes that we board--Americans and others in our country--in the 
United States, but then face spraying when they land in another 
country.
  Unless you have actually experienced it, you cannot imagine just how 
scary it is when you are sitting there waiting to disembark from your 
plane and somebody comes through spraying a very potent insect killer.
  Let me just give a word of advice to American travelers. The next 
time you are traveling to the Caribbean, you may want to pack an air 
mask along with your bathing suit and suntan lotion. In fact, you might 
want to bring it if you fly anywhere internationally because sometimes 
even the U.S. Department of Transportation does not know if you are 
going to be sprayed with a pesticide during that flight.
  What happens is the flight attendants will come through and spray 
over your heads these cans of insecticide, or sometimes they send them 
right out through the plane ventilation system so that you have to 
breathe it. It is not some kind of air freshener, it is not something 
to welcome you to the sunny island you are going to, it is a pesticide, 
and it is commonly known as Black Knight Roach Killer. That is what 
they are spraying on you, roach killer. It is not a gesture of, 
``Welcome, tourists, to our country,'' it is a ``You better watch out 
because you are getting sprayed.''
  A lot of people experience only a mild discomfort from this welcoming 
spritz. But for people with breathing problems or chemical 
sensitivities, it can be far more severe. Philip Murphy was one of the 
more sensitive individuals. He had emphysema. He asked to leave the 
plane before the pesticide was sprayed. They denied his request, even 
though he had emphysema. Eighteen hours later, he was dead.
  There are at least 53 million people in the United States with 
chronic breathing conditions like Philip's. Incidentally, that is about 
20 percent of the U.S. population. It is a serious problem, and it has 
to be addressed.
  My amendment would require all carriers flying to and from the United 
States to tell the Department of Transportation what countries they fly 
to that require spraying. Then you can make the choice of whether you 
want to travel there or not.
  Basically we say, alert us, let American travelers know before they 
get on the plane whether they are going to be sprayed with something 
like Black Knight Roach Killer.
  The irony is that in most instances, this spraying does nothing to 
protect the country doing the spraying. There are far better and far 
less intrusive ways of protecting those countries from bugs or insects 
or anything else that might come in and affect their agricultural 
crops.
  What this does is actually two things. First, it probably sells a lot 
of roach killer. And it may make the department of agriculture in the 
particular country feel good, although it does very, very little, if 
anything, to stop insects from coming in. But it can also endanger the 
health of the travelers.
  As a practical matter, these countries have to post that fact. If 
they see their tourism traffic drop off, they are going to realize very 
quickly that they are not doing anything to protect their agriculture 
or protect their country from insects. What they are doing is creating 
an enormous economic problem for their country and they will stop 
requiring spraying.
  That is what I would like. Every country should have the right to 
quarantine incoming fruits and vegetables. Every country should have 
the right to stop insects or infestations that might come into their 
country and wipe out a crop. They should not be able to just spray 
poison on unsuspecting passengers when they come into that country. We, 
as the public getting on the plane, ought to have some idea what we are 
facing. We post notices in airports when there is a terrorist threat in 
such-and-such a country, in such-and-such an airport. We ought to also 
post very clearly that there is this problem: If you fly to this 
country, you are going to be sprayed with roach killer.
  Mr. President, I have been pushing the Department of Transportation 
since February to protect American travelers from the spraying of 
pesticides on airlines. I have written to the Department, I have 
written to countries that require spraying on airlines, I have written 
to the President. But 6 months later, little has changed for American 
travelers.
  Today the Department of Transportation will be releasing a list of 
countries that require spraying. Unfortunately, despite three letters 
from the State Department requesting this information, a number of 
countries have still not responded.
  The amendment that I offered would give those countries that have not 
yet responded an incentive to do so. My amendment would bar carriers 
from flying out of the United States until they have provided the 
Department of Transportation with information on the countries they fly 
to that require spraying, as well as any changes in those spraying 
requirements as they are made.
  This amendment would not require those countries to change their 
disinfection practices, although I hope that they will. What it would 
do is provide American air travelers with the information they need to 
make safe travel choices.
  I know that the Senator from New Jersey shares my concern about this 
issue. He joined me in writing to President Clinton earlier this year 
urging changes in the international guidelines that endorse in-flight 
aircraft disinfection.
  I think that three things need to happen if the health of American 
travelers is to be protected. First, the Department must have a 
complete list of countries that require spraying. Second, that list 
must be provided to consumers when they need it--that is, when they are 
purchasing tickets and making their travel plans. Finally, the list 
must be kept accurate and up to date, so that passengers can count on 
the information they are given.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Department of Transportation will be 
releasing a list of countries requiring spraying today. The Department 
has also assured me that they will develop regulations to ensure that 
this information is provided to travelers purchasing tickets. I am also 
working to include information on countries that require in-flight 
spraying on the Federal Aviation Administration's Consumer Safety 
Hotline.
  The Department of Transportation has now assured me that they have 
received information on countries requiring spraying from foreign and 
domestic carriers which are representative of most destinations served 
from the United States.
  I understand that the Department has also committed to continue 
pursuing those countries that have not yet responded to their request, 
and to follow up on that information to ensure that the list is kept 
accurate and up to date. Is that the case?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yes, that is my understanding as well, 
and I would like to commend the Senator for his hard work and efforts 
to protect air travelers.
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to thank the Senator for his assistance in 
resolving these concerns and for his interest in this issue. In light 
of the Department's new assurances, I will withdraw my amendment. 
However, I sincerely hope that the Department does not experience the 
kinds of delays that we have seen so far on this issue in its efforts 
to complete the list of countries that require spraying and get that 
information to consumers.
  If the Department is unable to meet these commitments then I believe 
it is the responsibility of Congress to step in to protect airline 
passengers. American travelers have waited long enough for this 
information.
  Mr. President, I now withdraw my amendment. I believe I have that 
right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment (No. 2331) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Vermont 
brings up an excellent point. I was astonished to hear the story of the 
person, though not totally surprised, who reacted so negatively to that 
spray, that it took his life.
  I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Vermont has presented his 
concern. I agree we have to figure out a way to protect passengers from 
being sprayed with insecticides when they travel to other countries.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey and 
appreciate his usual courtesy in such matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I withdraw that.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding the parliamentary 
situation is that we are considering two committee amendments, the 
second of which is the one on which I intend at the appropriate time to 
offer a tabling motion. So I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
first amendment and at this time move to the second committee 
amendment, which has to do with the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment 
project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The pending question is the committee amendment on page 30, line 9.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend at the appropriate time to offer 
a tabling motion on this committee amendment, but I would want to do it 
at such time as my friends from New York, Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Moynihan, want to speak on it. So I will withhold my tabling motion at 
this time.
  I say to the distinguished managers of the bill I only intend to talk 
for a few minutes here and then I would be more than happy to offer the 
tabling motion at their convenience, what they think would not only be 
at their convenience but for the convenience of the body.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the committee amendment 
directing funding for the Penn Station redevelopment project in New 
York City. I have serious reservations about the project, and I urge 
the Senate to reject the committee amendment and save the taxpayers $40 
million.
  As my colleagues are aware, the committee amendment would provide 
Federal funding for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project. 
Specifically, this money would be used to fund engineering, design, and 
construction activities necessary to convert the James A. Farley Post 
Office in New York City into an intercity railroad passenger station 
and commercial center.
  Let me read from the House Appropriations Committee report, Mr. 
President. I quote:

       The committee recommends no funding for grants to Amtrak to 
     redevelop Pennsylvania Station in New York City in fiscal 
     year 1995. The Committee believes that in such tight 
     budgetary times a project of this uncertainty and magnitude 
     is simply not justified. The project was not requested by 
     Amtrak this year, even though Amtrak is stated by proponents 
     to be the primary beneficiary. It was not included in the 
     internal budget request of either the Federal Railroad 
     Administration or the Department of Transportation. The 
     project is not authorized, and the administration's proposed 
     authorizing legislation only covers one part of the project. 
     Although the administration proposes bill language fencing 
     the Federal funds until a ``binding commitment'' is signed 
     for the non-Federal share, evidence in the committee's 
     hearing this year indicates that not all parties are expected 
     to sign a binding agreement, and for those that do sign, the 
     commitment would be reflected only in a memorandum of 
     agreement, which does not legally bind any of the non-Federal 
     parties.

  Mr. President, I do not think the reasons for voting against this 
amendment could have been stated any more clearly. I ask my colleagues 
to listen to the other body and vote against funding for this 
unauthorized project.
  As the report says, Penn Station redevelopment project is not 
included in the budgets prepared by the relevant agencies. In other 
words, the professionals who know the needs and concerns of their 
agencies best did not feel this project was enough of a priority.
  The House committee report also points out that the project has not 
been authorized. Surely a project of this magnitude should be properly 
and fully authorized.
  Congress did consider this matter in October 1992 during debate on 
the Amtrak Authorization Act. This measure directed Amtrak to develop a 
plan for new or redeveloped station facilities in New York City with 
Pennsylvania Station as its focal point. Congress at that time stated, 
``The plan shall be predicated upon completing the project without 
Federal funds appropriated for the corporation.'' Nevertheless, we are 
here today considering a $40 million appropriation for this project.
  If my colleagues need more justification to vote against this 
provision, I direct them towards last year's House Appropriations 
Committee report. In reference to the Penn Station project, they wrote:

       The committee specifically denies all funding for this 
     project * * * Given the austere budget situation facing this 
     country, it is extremely doubtful that taxpayers should 
     contribute to such a project.

  Mr. President, obviously, I do not believe we should always follow 
the lead of the other body, but, clearly, I believe our colleagues 
across the Capitol have it right.
  Even the Senate committee's amendment raises a question about the 
wisdom of this appropriation. The committee sets certain conditions on 
the use of this money which prevent the expenditure of funds unless a 
``binding agreement'' has been reached with the other participants 
regarding financial commitments and the Secretary of Transportation 
reports to the Appropriations Committee on financial arrangements to 
improve the existing facility.
  I am sure, Mr. President, the proponents of this project will point 
to this as evidence that we are protecting the taxpayer. Well, Mr. 
President, my question is, if these conditions are so important, why 
have they not already been met before we appropriate the money? I am 
afraid that this may appear to be fiscally responsible when in reality 
we are, once again, giving away too much money.
  We often have debates in this body about cutting wasteful projects 
after they have been funded for several years only to hear opponents 
say, ``It's too late. We can't stop funding now. It would be more 
expensive to kill the project than it would be to finish it.'' They 
also say, ``In retrospect, if I knew then what I know now, I would 
never have allowed the project to start.''
  In summary, the committee amendment earmarks $40 million for the 
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project, a practice which I strongly 
oppose. I will be proposing a sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning 
Federal highway aid earmarks later. The House specifically recommended 
no funding for this project in both this year's and last year's 
Transportation Appropriations Committee reports. In 1992, when Congress 
considered the Amtrak Authorization Act, we directed the corporation to 
develop a plan for a new or redeveloped Penn Station. Congress at that 
time stated:

       The plan shall be predicated upon completing the project 
     without Federal funds appropriated for the corporation.

  The project was not included in the internal budget request of 
Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration or the Department of 
Transportation. A commitment has not been reached with the other 
parties financing the project as to the extent of the Federal share. 
And, again, the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project is 
unauthorized.
  Before yielding the floor, I ask the distinguished managers of the 
bill, especially on the Republican side, when they would like me to 
propose a vote on this tabling motion.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I 
hope that we can stack these votes, taking the first one, then the 
second one, and then go to a vote on final passage. If we do the three 
votes together, we can minimize inconvenience to our colleagues. It 
would be our desire to move in that manner.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friends from New York and from New Jersey, I 
will be glad to at any time. I remind them that I do have an additional 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I would like to propose at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Would that require a vote? Does the Senator know?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Well, that would indicate that we should stack all four 
votes together.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Might I ask----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] is 
recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. My friend is now looking to strike this particular 
section of the bill, is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. This committee amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes. And the Senator says that he would offer a tabling 
motion?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the proper procedure is to 
make a motion to table this committee amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Oh, the committee amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. D'AMATO. All right. I just wanted to make an inquiry. I thank my 
friend.
  Mr. President, this bill does contain $40 million for the 
redevelopment of the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City as a 
new gateway station for Amtrak. It gets down to a rather simple matter. 
Either we provide the funds for this project or we are going to have to 
provide $400 million or thereabouts for Amtrak to undertake it at a 
later time. And I say how, when and where? How are they going to get 
the resources? When? How long will it take for them? They do not have 
that kind of capital resource funding to undertake such a project. And 
yet the need is clearly going to be there as it relates to the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program funds that we have invested, 
hundreds of millions of dollars, for the improvement of service from 
New York to Washington, for the improvement of service from Boston to 
New York to Washington.
  It is estimated that passenger traffic, as a result of the 
institution of 3-hour Amtrak service between New York City and Boston, 
is going to increase many times over. It is absolutely essential that 
we have the rail facility that is being planned, and that these moneys 
are earmarked--yes, it is earmarked--for where the funds will be spent. 
The American taxpayers are going to pay for this for about a third of 
the total project. If we are going to take it from Amtrak, I will 
suggest that wherever Amtrak serves, you are going to see drastic, 
drastic cutbacks in terms of service and modernization, in terms of 
equipment, in terms of facilities, in terms of necessary renovation--as 
a result of such a step.
  If we are not going to earmark funds for this important project, then 
all the money that we have invested in improving the corridor between 
New York and Boston, improving the corridor between Washington and New 
York, is really wasted; hundreds of millions of dollars.
  As it relates to which projects are funded and which are not funded, 
I say this is not anything new. This project was included in the 
President's budget. He asked for a total of $100 million: $10 million 
in fiscal year 1994 and $90 million in fiscal year 1995. We are going 
forward in a modest way. We are providing $40 million. I believe in 
fiscal year 1994 we provided $10 million. This is not something new 
that we invented at the committee. Moreover, this committee has set 
aside some $9 million to do basically the same kind of thing, as it 
relates to Union Station in Kansas City, MO.
  If we do not take care of our Nation's infrastructure, we eventually 
will pay the price of our neglect. We hear all of this yelling and 
screaming, that moving people by way of rail is cheaper, more 
efficient, and environmentally better than other transportation modes. 
In the past, we have neglected rail transportation.
  If you want to move large numbers of people, particularly in urban 
corridors, should we pay for more rail facilities, or close the rail 
systems down? Let passengers commute by airplane? I guess people can 
afford $150. I do not know if they can: But that is what it costs to 
fly between Boston and New York or between Washington, DC, and New 
York. So, if we continue to neglect rail transportation we will force 
more people into the air traffic system or onto the overburdened 
highways. There already is tremendous congestion in terms of highway 
and air traffic going in and out of these urban areas. Neglecting rail 
travel will cost the Government even more money because we subsidize 
the aviation and highway systems to a far greater extent than we 
subsidize our national passenger rail infrastructure.
  This project is a good investment. We should undertake it now, not 
later. If we delay it, it is going to cost us a lot more. If we delay 
it, we will have spent tens and tens of millions of dollars 
unnecessarily. That is why I support the utilization of these funds, 
because it is a very important program.
  Senator Moynihan has been a leader in this effort. I know he wants to 
add his comments on this matter. The station project is included in the 
President's budget. It is an investment in our future, and in our 
Nation's transportation system, and it is being undertaken in an 
environmentally sound manner. This project helps to support and enhance 
the hundreds of millions of dollars of effort that we have already put 
into Amtrak. Amtrak cannot do it alone. That is why we are choosing 
this method of funding this important program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I see our colleague from Iowa is on 
the floor. We have an amendment pending. I have no problem with the 
Senator making a request to put this aside, to consider what he has to 
say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will follow the chairman's suggestion, and ask that 
the amendment be set aside to take up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2332

  (Purpose: To provide for the use of funds for the employment by the 
     Inspector General of independent counsel at the Department of 
                            Transportation)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2332.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 41, line 26, strike out the period at the end and 
     insert in lieu thereof: ``Provided, That of such amount, 
     $180,000 shall be available for employment by the Inspector 
     General of independent legal counsel at the Department of 
     Transportation.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment, if adopted, would give the 
inspector general or IG at the Department of Transportation $180,000 to 
hire independent legal counsel.
  Independent legal counsel for the IG can and must be achieved at no 
additional cost to the taxpayer.
  Toward that end, my amendment would authorize the IG to use $180,000 
appropriated in this bill to hire independent legal counsel.
  My amendment would not increase the funding level in the bill.
  The office of the general counsel currently provides the IG with 
legal support services under a memorandum of understanding or MOU. 
Those services would no longer be needed.
  With the IG doing her own legal work, the general counsel's force of 
62 attorneys should be cut. I am not proposing that, but that question 
needs to be examined by the committee.
  Mr. President, my amendment is almost identical to a proposal in the 
House bill. The House gave the IG $180,000 ``to hire two in-house 
attorneys.''
  The House sent this message with the money.
  I quote: ``There is a `need for independence and a history of delays 
in the general counsel's office.'''
  Mr. President, the general counsel's office at Transportation has a 
track record for foot dragging on thorny investigative issues.
  The House decision to give the IG money to hire independent legal 
counsel is authorized by the law.
  Section 6(a)(7) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the 
IG's to hire all necessary personnel, including independent legal 
counsel.
  There is no question about that. The intent of the law is crystal 
clear.
  Senator Glenn, the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
that has primary jurisdiction over the inspectors general, has 
repeatedly stated that the IG's have the authority in law to hire 
independent legal counsel.
  As recently as June 8, 1994, during consideration of the procurement 
reform bill, Senator Glenn stated:

       If they [the IGs] feel their independence is being 
     compromised in any way, shape, or form, they have the 
     authority to hire their own independent counsel and their own 
     independent staffs.

  Well, Mr. President, the IG at the Department of Transportation feels 
like her independence is being threatened and compromised.
  The IG at Transportation is Mrs. Mary Schiavo. She is on maternity 
leave until December. Mr. Mario Lauro, the Deputy IG, is running the 
office in her absence and speaks with her authority.
  Mr. Mario Lauro has commicated with and visited my office on several 
occasions recently. I can tell you one thing, Mr. President. Mr. Mario 
Lauro is fiercely independent, and he speaks for Mrs. Schiavo.
  Both think they need independent legal counsel. They are very unhappy 
with the current setup.
  But the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Ferderico Pena, and his 
general counsel, are opposed to the idea of having an IG with 
independent legal counsel.
  Why is there so much opposition to the IG having independent legal 
counsel? Why all the fuss?
  It cannot be concern over having too many lawyers at the Department 
of Transportation.
  I hear no complaints where there should be complaints.
  The Department is already loaded up--top heavy--with lawyers--524 in 
all.
  The FAA, for example, has 190 attorneys; the Federal Highway 
Administration has 66; the General Counsel has 62; the Coast Guard--61. 
But the IG has zero.
  The new attorneys for the IG is small potatoes when compared to that 
vast army of Transportation lawyers. One or two more IG lawyers cannot 
be the problem.
  The real issue has to lie elsewhere.
  This is the real issue, Mr. President: How can the Department 
maintain control over the IG? A strong, independent IG is the problem.
  An independent IG able to reach independent legal opinions on 
important issues is a grave threat to the Department.
  That is why the Secretary of Transportation does not want the IG to 
have independent legal counsel.
  It is as simple as that.
  Mr. President, I would now like to briefly examine current MOU 
arrangements that govern legal decisions within departments.
  The IG and general counsel at Transportation signed and MOU in 
October 1993.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the MOU be printed in the 
Record along with a table showing how the 524 attorneys are spread 
around the Department.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Department of Transportation Reimbursable Agreement

       Reimbursing organization:
       Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector 
     General, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
       Organization to be reimbursed:
       Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 
     Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, S.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20590.
       Effective date: October 1, 1993.
       Amount: 98,000.


                                summary

       Purpose: This agreement will transfer funds to pay the cost 
     of an Attorney-Advisor (GM-15) who will devote substantially 
     full to providing legal assistance to the Office of the 
     Inspector General (OIG). This will include (1) researching 
     legislative histories of statutes applicable to DOT programs; 
     (2) interpreting provisions of grants, contracts, laws, and 
     regulations; (3) issuing formal and informal legal opinions; 
     (4) reviewing proposed legislation and regulations, as 
     required by the Inspector General Act; and (5) determining 
     the legal implications of audit and investigative reports.
       Funding: The transfer of funds will be made by the OIG upon 
     receipt of an SF 1081 prepared by the Office of the Secretary 
     referencing the above Document Control Number and the 
     appropriate chargeable.
       Limition: No change in the dollar amount of this agreement 
     is valid without a written amendment.
       Modification: The agreement may be modified by amending the 
     initial agreement.
       COTR: Glenda Somerville, Financial Manager, Telephone 
     Number (202) 366-1976, is the Contracting Officer's Technical 
     Representative within the Department of Transportation for 
     technical direction within the scope of this agreement. All 
     correspondence should make reference to this agreement.
       Approved for reimbursing organization: Robert B. Frey, III, 
     Director, Planning and & Resources.
       Approved for organization to be reimbursed: Charlotte S. 
     Boeck, Administrative Officer.


                           financial addendum

       Billing Office: Accounting Operations Division, M-86.
       Bill to Address: Department of Transportation, Office of 
     the Inspector General.
       DOT Project Officer: Charlotte S. Boeck.
       Project Beginning Date: October 1, 1993.
       Ending Date: September 30, 1994.

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--ATTORNEYS IN THE DOT OPERATING      
                             ADMINISTRATIONS                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of  Percentage
            Operating administration               attorneys   of total 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA.............................................         190        36.3
FHWA............................................          66        12.6
OST.............................................          62        11.8
USCG............................................          61        11.6
MARAD...........................................          34         6.5
FRA.............................................          34         6.5
NHTSA...........................................          30         5.7
FTA.............................................          26         5.0
RSPA............................................          19         3.6
SLSDC...........................................           2         0.4
OIG.............................................           0         0.0
                                                 -----------------------
  Total.........................................         524       100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The MOU at Transportation is not unique.
  Four other IG's have negotiated similar arrangements with their 
general counsels. The four others are: Defense, EPA, FEMA, and HHS.
  The vast majority of the IG's, by comparison, have independent legal 
counsel.
  There are 28 major IG establishments altogether.
  Of those, 21 have independent legal counsel. Two more are in the 
process of getting it.
  That leaves five that do not have it, including the IG at 
Transportation.
  Those five IG's have no capability to reach independent legal 
judgments. They must rely on the general counsels at their parent 
agencies for legal advice. That is just not healthy.
  The MOU's make the general counsel the final arbiter or judge in any 
dispute between agency lawyers and the IG.
  Under the MOU's, the IG's legal staff is controlled by agency general 
counsels.
  Transportation is no exception to the rule.
  The IG at Transportation has been given one staff attorney, who is 
assigned by the general counsel. This person is physically located in 
the general counsel's office space. This person's performance is 
evaluated by general counsel but paid by the IG. And, I am told, this 
person never renders an opinion without checking with the general 
counsel.
  Last year, the IG at the Department of Transportation attempted to 
break the MOU but failed.
  Then this year there was an attempt to force the IG to sign a letter 
that said, in effect: ``I am happy with the legal support provided by 
the general counsel. I don't need independent legal counsel. The 
general counsel gives me all the independent legal advice I need.''
  Despite intense pressure, Mr. Mario Lauro refused to sign the letter. 
They could not ram it down his throat. That is to his credit. He 
deserves a medal.
  The MOU arrangement is not a very good deal for either the taxpayer 
or the IG.
  The IG's were set up to guarantee that there was frugal use of the 
taxpayers' money and that the laws are executed as intended by 
Congress.
  Well, Mr. President, the IG's must be independent to make that 
guarantee work--to make it real.
  Well, Mr. President, the IG at the Department of Transportation 
cannot provide that guarantee.
  The IG cannot give the guarantee so long as the Department's general 
counsel has a stranglehold over her legal decisions.
  Keeping the stranglehold is very important to the Department.
  Most sensitive investigative issues boil down to a legal question.
  The current MOU arrangement gives the agency's general counsel 
authority to shape the legal issues and in this way control the outcome 
of investigations.
  It allows the agencies to conduct effective damage control 
operations.
  It allows them to block investigations directed against senior 
officials.
  It places the agency's attorneys in conflict-of-interest situations.
  And worst of all, it compromises the IG's ability to render 
independent judgments on controversial issues.
  It is a loser all the way around.
  Mr. President, I think we should give the IG at the Department of 
Transportation the tools she is entitled to have under the law to do 
her job.
  Mr. President, I understand the committee is prepared to accept my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from 
Iowa makes an excellent point. It is already provided for, as he noted. 
We have no problem accepting the language that he has recommended to 
put the two attorneys in the inspector general's department.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Grassley 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2332) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the committee amendment 
on page 30.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to address the remarks made 
earlier by the Senator from Arizona. I would like, first, to thank my 
dear friends and colleagues, the managers of the legislation, the 
Senator from New Jersey and my particular friend, the Senator from New 
York, who have earlier spoken against this proposal.
  I would now like to do so. If I am brief, Mr. President, it is only 
because it appears to me that the case is succinct and overwhelming.
  We have a situation of great importance to rail transportation in the 
United States, which is to say that essentially a Government-owned 
building, the general Post Office in the city of New York, named for 
that eminent Postmaster General James A. Farley, is being vacated by 
the Post Office. It happens that this building is directly across the 
street from the original Pennsylvania Station demolished in 1963 and 
the very inadequate subterranean substitute placed there.
  The capacity of the existing facility is already fully used, as 
Senator D'Amato stated and as Senator Lautenberg stated. Nearly 40 
percent of Amtrak passengers pass through Pennsylvania Station--40 
percent. It is also the terminal for the Long Island Railroad and for 
the New Jersey Transit. An enormous number of people use this already 
inadequate facility.
  By a stroke of fortune you could not have anticipated--it happens 
once in awhile, you get lucky--across the street there is a magnificent 
building sitting atop the very same tracks which pass under 
Pennsylvania Station, for the very same reason. It was the general Post 
Office, and in the 1900's the mail moved by rail. Now that building is 
being vacated by the Post Office for the simple reason that the mail is 
no longer handled in the way it was at the beginning of the century.
  The State of New York in the person of the Governor in his annual 
message to the legislature, the State of the State, Governor Cuomo, the 
mayors of the city of New York, first Mayor Dinkins, now Mayor 
Giuliani, have committed to paying a third of the cost of recreating 
this Pennsylvania Station. The President of the United States in his 
budget said the Federal Government would pay for a third and Amtrak 
will arrange for the remaining third. About $315 million is involved. 
Amtrak will arrange for it by simply emulating the experience of Union 
Station just 500 yards from where we sit.
  Mr. President, that building was derelict, near derelict. In the late 
1970's, Senator Chafee and I and members of the Committee on Public 
Works got some money to fix the roof so it would not deteriorate, as 
buildings will do, to the point beyond recovery.
  Then with one thing and another a whole Union Station complex was 
built, and it thrives. I believe ridership went up 20 percent and 
stayed up. Any hour of the night or day you will find it is a shopping 
concourse, an entertainment center. It is a great bit of urban activity 
over there and a hub. You have rail, you have bus, you have taxi, you 
have subway, all those things that make a city work. The same thing 
would be true in New York City.
  We can act now. We have the city, the State, the Federal Government, 
and the Amtrak Corporation saying, ``Do it now.''
  Mr. President, if we do not do it today, if the Federal Government 
does not put up $90 million as will be authorized any moment now by S. 
2002, introduced by Mr. Exon, authorizing appropriations for the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, if we do not act now, in 20 
years time we will be looking for $1 billion from the Federal 
Government because this structure once abandoned will deteriorate 
beyond the point of recycling it. That is the term that is used for 
these buildings, and someone will stand up and say why could not we 
have had the sense to do what was necessary before a crisis developed, 
a crisis of New Jersey, New York, and of passengers in the Northeast 
corridor, a crisis of 40 percent of all the passengers in Amtrak?
  This is a constructive, useful, timely measure. If we want a crisis 
to develop in our transportation systems, and then decry the crisis 
with much cost and recrimination, that will not be difficult.
  That is the choice we make today. Do this today and in 5 years' time 
we will have a structure that the Nation will be proud of, that will 
generate economic growth and avoid an absolutely avoidable crisis 
which, if we do not act now, will be upon us and unavoidable.
  I urge my colleagues--and I say this with fervor--not to accept the 
motion to table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], 
is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues 
from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and 
the ranking member of this subcommittee, for their comments regarding 
this national facility.
  This is not simply a New York regional project, Mr. President. This 
is the chance to confirm the fact that we are interested in a balanced 
transportation network.
  We are now in the process of electrifying the remaining unelectrified 
portion of the Northeast corridor between New Haven and Boston that 
will give us electric train service from Boston to Washington.
  Right now, Mr. President, the number of flights between New York and 
Washington is probably somewhere in the area of 80 flights a day, and 
between Boston and New York somewhere around 50 flights a day, for a 
total of 130.
  Mr. President, that total would be even higher if we were to consider 
the trips that go direct Boston-Washington, Washington-Boston.
  We think our aviation system is terrific. As a matter of fact, it is 
by far the best in the world. It is very safe. It is very efficient.
  But we are crowding the skies, Mr. President, and all you have to do 
is talk to people over whose houses the airplanes fly to learn they do 
not like the volume of traffic that takes place there. As the 
distinguished Senator from New York said earlier, some are forced by 
virtue of price to find another way to travel between Washington-New 
York, Boston-Washington, and Boston-New York. Unfortunately, many in 
this situation choose their cars.
  A train offers a wonderful alternative. Is Amtrak's new Penn Station 
redevelopment project an essential factor in the development of our 
high-speed rail capability? The answer is absolutely yes, Mr. 
President. It is not simply a station that will serve travelers from 
New Jersey or Philadelphia or Washington, but also from Delaware, from 
New Haven--you name it. When I go to New York, I use the train because 
it is far better than sitting in traffic waiting for the tunnels or the 
bridges to open up. We often have delays at the bridges and tunnels 
that are longer than the drive was to get to the bridge or tunnel. Even 
without the additional service Amtrak is going to be offering between 
Boston and New York, Penn Station will continue to be ever more 
crowded.
  Mr. President, when you walk into that station, unless you are an 
experienced traveler in Penn Station, you are bewildered by the number 
of signs, the number of sounds, the number of people that are just 
jammed together in that station. It is totally inadequate, and it is 
unfair to the rail traveling public. I think that Senator Moynihan made 
the point very clearly.
  When we improved Washington Station, we improved the whole world of 
rail travel. When we improved the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, 
we created a positive attitude for the traveler and the area. It is no 
longer a hangout for those who would obstruct traffic. It is no longer 
the place that derelicts accumulate. It is no longer an unpleasant 
experience. The renovated station has shops and more are opening. It is 
a pleasurable experience to take the train to that location now.
  So, Mr. President, when I look at this expenditure, I recognize and 
acknowledge the fact that the administration requested $90 million. We 
did put in $40 million. We could not do more. We have done the maximum 
we can. This project will add to the general transportation efficiency 
of our country. I think, Mr. President, that we ought to move 
expeditiously to get this project started, to begin construction before 
the increase in costs associated with inflation outrun the total 
package that we are looking at here today.
  The Federal Government will not be constructing this project on its 
own. New York State and New York City are going to contribute to the 
project. Amtrak will contribute as well.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for the courtesy and 
the manner in which he disagreed with us. While we disagreed, it was 
not disagreeable.
  He has consented, as I understand it, if he chooses to have a 
rollcall here, that we will be able to put it at the end of the debate 
and before the final passage of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside in order to pose a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution in the form of an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2333

 (Purpose: Expressing the Sense of the Senate that Highway Trust Funds 
should be allocated to the State under a fair and equitable allocation 
                                formula)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2333.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Sense of the Senate--
       The Senate finds that: Federal-Aid Highway funding is 
     subject to a formula based allocation process;
       States are best able to determine the priorities for 
     allocating Federal-Aid highway funding within their 
     jurisdiction;
       Funding for demonstration projects diverts Highway Trust 
     Fund money from the priorities established under the formula 
     allocation process, and deprives states of the opportunity to 
     determine how Federal-Aid highway funds should be spent 
     within their jurisdiction;
       Federal Transit Administration funding is critical to 
     cities and states across the nation and the Senate supports 
     the fair and equitable distribution of federal transit aid to 
     the eligible recipients;
       The Department of Transportation has criteria for 
     allocating federal transit aid based on need, and taking into 
     consideration the requirement of the Clean Air Act and the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act;
       The Administration's National Performance Review indicates 
     that congressional earmarks are restrictive and counter-
     productive;
       The administration's fiscal year 1994 budget request urges 
     Congress to allow funding for demonstration projects to be 
     distributed under the formula allocation process;
       It's the Sense of the Senate that Congress should refrain 
     from authorizing and appropriating money for new 
     demonstration or earmarked highway and transit projects and 
     allow such funds as would otherwise be required to be spent 
     for specific projects, to be distributed to the states for 
     transportation projects under the applicable merit-based 
     allocation formulas and procedures.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on this amendment, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays take place at the pleasure of the managers of the bill when they 
propound a unanimous-consent agreement concerning the tabling motion 
and this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. This amendment is very 
simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should allow 
Federal highway aid to be distributed equitably among the States 
according to the Department of Transportation's allocation formula, and 
refrain from the practice of legislative earmarking.
  The problems associated with diverting highway trust fund money to 
congressionally earmarked highway projects has been debated before. 
But, regrettably, the practice continues and it demands our attention. 
This bill and the accompanying report contains $300 million in highway 
earmarks--$300 million that would otherwise be distributed to the State 
to fund their priorities, has been set aside and carved up by Congress 
for favored projects.
  I would like to read from an editorial from the Orlando Sentinel last 
February that sums up the issue, perhaps not totally accurately, but 
sums up the issue in the view of the American people. I quote from the 
February 6, 1994, article from the Orlando Sentinel:

       Washington.--They are called ``highway demonstration 
     projects,'' but the main thing they demonstrate is the power 
     of the pork-barrel kings of Congress.
       If you live near a place like Altoona, Pa., you might think 
     of these projects as manna from heaven. If you live someplace 
     else--Florida, say--you might call them highway robbery.
       Since 1987, demonstration projects--intended to stimulate 
     innovative road building--have become a wildly popular way 
     for Congress to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars without 
     going through the regular highway program.
       And this year, against the advice of their expert 
     accountants, lawmakers are preparing to spend still more.
       The money used for demo projects amounts to less than 5 
     percent of the $20-billion-a-year federal highway program. 
     But transportation experts--including those at the General 
     Accounting Office--say this is money not well spent.
       ``In 1991 we found that about half of the demonstration 
     projects we reviewed did not appear on state or regional 
     transportation plans,'' GAO official Kenneth Mead told a 
     congressional committee last year. As such, the demo projects 
     leapfrogged what local transportation officers had set as 
     priorities.
       The demo projects give individual lawmakers, generally the 
     most powerful ones, a chance to circumvent established road-
     building priorities and channel money directly to pet 
     projects in their home states or districts.
       The dealing is done out of the public eye, and the results 
     eventually wind up in the fine print of multiyear highway 
     bills and annual spending bills. Powerful lawmakers on 
     committees that control those bills either insert the demo 
     projects for themselves or in a horse trade with a colleague.

  Mr. President, I will not quote the entire article, but that is the 
flavor of it, and that is what the American people believe.
  The American people believe that deals are done behind closed doors 
which have nothing to do with the priorities of the States who are 
sending these tax dollars to Washington.
  Mr. President, I think it is a wrong practice. I think that 
earmarking has been abused. I think there may be times, very few, rare 
examples, where a situation may arise where it is called for. But I 
think the overall process is one which has grown and one which is not 
acceptable and one which deprives the residents, the citizens of 
certain States, of the benefits of the tax dollars that they send to 
Washington, DC. They have every right to expect those tax dollars to be 
spent on an equitable basis, according to the formula set up by the 
Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation.
  Mr. President, we are all guilty of this practice. I know that many 
of the demonstrations authorized under the highway bill have already 
been started and that it may be too late to turn back. But at some 
point it must stop. A vote for the resolution I have offered is a vote 
to stop this obsolete practice.
  I reiterate to my colleagues that the problem of highway project 
earmarking is not a regional or a partisan issue. It's not about east 
versus west, urban versus rural, nor should it be Republican versus 
Democrat. It's a matter of better government.
  President Clinton, in his budget request this year, asked Congress to 
stop diverting highway trust funds to pay for special projects--a 
practice that skews priorities, and favors some States at the expense 
of others.
  He urged Congress to allow highway aid to be distributed fairly 
according to the established formula so that taxpayers' dollars could 
be spent according to the priorities established with such great care 
and expertise by those best qualified to do so--the individual States.
  To those who pay public tribute to the concept of reinventing 
government, and I'm quite certain that includes every Member of this 
body, I urge you to keep in mind that the administration's blueprint 
for better government requests that we refrain from tying the hands of 
administrators with mandated spending on site specific projects.
  Allowing highway aid to be equitably distributed and spent on the 
highest priorities doesn't seem like a lot to ask. It sounds like good 
government. It sounds like good government because it is. But, this 
bill with $300 million diverted for special projects just perpetuates 
the tired status quo.
  Many of these projects, I'm certain, are vital. Many of them may even 
be State priorities. I'm sure that the members of the Appropriations 
Committee are well intentioned and do their best to try and screen the 
projects as best they can. But, it just isn't working. Many of the 
projects on the earmark list might not appear on a State priority list 
for many years. To those who would disagree, I ask simply, if the 
contrary were true, why do we need the earmark.
  This bill also contains numerous earmarks for bus and rail transit 
projects. The Department of Transportation has allocation criteria for 
awarding projects which take into consideration the Clean Air Act and 
the Americans With Disabilities Act. Again, rather than earmark future 
projects we should adhere to the process.
  Mr. President, as sure as I'm standing here today, I can see the 
press releases that will go out when this bill passes. Congressman 
``fill in the blank'' announces he has won funding for this bridge or 
that road. And, it will sound impressive. It will sound like effective 
legislating. He's bringing home the goods. They may even name the 
highway after him. What a guy. But, guess what? Oddly enough, there 
will never be a press release about the priority project that didn't 
get funded because of the ``pork factor''--the vital bridge that will 
just have to wait, or the critical road improvement that just won't get 
done.
  In my opinion, the good government argument should be compelling 
enough. But for those hopelessly enamored with earmarks and the 
congressional way of doing business, I offer a word of caution and I 
suggest that a little math might be in order. Each Senator might 
measure what his State would receive if the $300 million in earmarks 
were divided according to the formula, against what their State might 
receive for a congressionally awarded demonstration. I suspect many 
Senators, particularly those not on the right committees, might 
reconsider just how wonderful the practice of earmarking is.
  So, Mr. President, the resolution I have offered is very simple. It 
says let's bring order, priorities, and principle to the process. It 
says let's defer to merit. It says let's do as the President and our 
Governors request--let's adhere to process rather than the catch as 
catch can free for all of congressional earmarks.
  A vote for the resolution is a vote for good government, merit-based 
process, and State empowerment. A vote against the resolution is a vote 
for business as usual and the worn out politics of pork.
  It is a simple amendment. One of the reasons I propose this as a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution is because I am not interested in going 
back and revisiting what has happened. I do not think to kill these 
projects at this time would be an appropriate move, nor, by the way, a 
successful one.
  But I think we should express our sense that earmarking is a practice 
that has outlived its usefulness and one that should be done away with.
  I say that not reflecting any aspersions on the character and 
integrity of the managers of the bill. I know that they do the very 
best job that they can and that they are committed to the best and most 
efficient use of taxpayers dollars.
  My point is that the process of earmarking is one which I think is an 
abuse whose correction is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on both 
of these issues. I yield the floor and look forward to perhaps hearing 
from the distinguished managers of the bill as to when we might expect 
a vote on both of these.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] 
is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we are considering two amendments which have been 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona. We have an informal 
agreement, which I am happy to confirm on the floor before I make my 
remarks. With his permission, we will ask unanimous consent to delay 
the votes on the two amendments that the Senator has proposed until 
just before we go to final passage, so that the vote will be in order 
at that time.
  Mr. McCain. Can I ask the distinguished manager about what time that 
might be, for the benefit of Members?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, with the good spirit evolving around here, 
while I cannot be precise, my guess is that we are probably talking 
something less than an hour.
  Mr. McCain. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to respond to the Senator's 
comments and explain why I oppose his proposal.
  The fiscal 1995 transportation appropriations bill continues a 
commitment that I made when I assumed the chairmanship of the 
Transportation Subcommittee. That commitment is principally to increase 
investment in our infrastructure.
  Mr. President, that is a mission of mine. It is a place where the 
United States is deficient compared to our competition, compared to our 
allies, compared to other developed nations around the world. We are 
woefully short of making the kinds of investments in infrastructure 
that we should be making--for all the reasons I stated earlier when I 
introduced the House transportation funding bill. Transportation 
funding is important because it has the short-term benefits of putting 
people to work. It has the long-term and intermediate benefits of 
reducing congestion, of reducing pollution, and of making us more 
competitive by moving goods and people to places they have to be in 
expeditious fashion.

  I sought the chairmanship of this committee, although I come from the 
computer industry, because I had experience at the Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey. I saw how vital it was to continue to improve 
our transportation facilities to be able to move the masses of people 
and the volume of goods as this country has to in order for us to stay 
economically vibrant.
  So with that in mind, and thanks to the support of the full committee 
chairman, Robert Byrd, the obligation ceiling for Federal highways has 
steadily increased from 1988, when it was $11.78 billion, to the $17.5 
billion figure contained in the fiscal 1995 bill.
  In the years I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we have seen 
a 48 percent improvement in the funds available for highway investment. 
I do not believe that any of the 7-year period in the highway programs 
has ever seen this kind of increase in investment. I did it with the 
aid and assistance and participation of my colleague from New York, 
Senator D'Amato.
  In addition to the funding that falls within the obligation ceiling, 
there is an additional $2.3 billion that benefits projects that were 
identified in ISTEA to receive funding outside the normal formula 
distribution.
  Thus, the total Federal-aid highway trust fund account stands at 
$19.8 billion. When ISTEA was first considered on the Senate side, it 
was the full committee chairman, Robert C. Byrd, who found an 
additional $8 billion that could be used in the highway program over 
the 6-year life of the ISTEA legislation.
  This funding has translated into raising the minimum share that every 
State receives from the highway trust fund. Funds are allocated in a 
fair and equitable manner and the gap between ``donor'' and ``donee'' 
States, which has been discussed on this floor for many years, is 
narrowing. In other words, the amount of money a State receives back 
from the Federal Government is much closer to 100 percent for everybody 
than it has ever been.
  In addition to the funding which has been provided for the regular 
Federal-aid highway program, the bill also contains general funds that 
are not taken from the highway trust funds--general funds. These funds 
are appropriated for individual highway projects that are either 
specifically authorized in existing law to receive general fund 
appropriations or that have already received general funds from the 
committee in the recent past.
  In last year's bill, funding was only provided for those projects 
specifically authorized to receive general funds. However, this had a 
peculiar effect. It meant that projects which had been started in the 
past by the Appropriations Committee would have been left, in some 
cases, only half finished.
  A project in Arkansas provided a very dramatic example in the half-
built bridge known as ``lock and dam No. 4.'' Senator Nickles, from 
Oklahoma, also allowed that through funding in the past, a road over a 
reservoir in Oklahoma had been completed, yet the access roads to that 
viaduct bridge had not been built.
  It is not fair to the States that engage in these projects to 
suddenly find out that what they thought was a full-term commitment has 
been abandoned midstream. So we endeavored in this funding category to 
further advance those projects which had already been started, to aid 
projects that had demonstrated local support, that had the necessary 
matching funds, and that could obligate additional funds.
  In the highway projects area, the subcommittee received funding 
requests of $1.7 billion, when in fact there was something like $350 
million available. So we had requests for six times the amount 
available. That came from a large number of Senators from States across 
the country who wanted to see projects funded that they knew were 
important to their States and to the transportation system.
  It should be pointed out that there is no specific annual authorized 
level for general highway fund projects, nor does this category of 
funding derive its funding from the regular Federal-aid trust fund 
highway program. The funds that are recommended came from the 
committee's overall general fund budget authority, and thus it competes 
with other general fund accounts, like Coast Guard operations, the 
salaries and expenses for the Office of the Transportation Secretary, 
and the Federal Aviation Administration's operation. So we are really 
placing ourselves at a distinct disadvantage when we throw all of this 
in one pot and we have it argued out in a debate on the floor. It is 
not orderly. It is not consistent with good practice.
  It is only after the usual examination is done, given the 
administration's budget request, that an estimate can be sensibly made 
on the amount of funding that will be available for the general fund 
appropriated highway projects.
  It is worth repeating. The general funding provided to these highways 
does not compete with nor does it detract from the funds provided under 
the Federal-aid Highway Trust Fund Program, which is distributed to all 
States through different formulas contained in ISTEA, which was 
negotiated, debated, argued and shaped in both bodies of the Congress 
and finally agreed to and signed into law by President Bush in December 
1991.
  So there is a long history of the way this has operated, getting ever 
more efficient. I hope our colleagues will defeat this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution because it does not really add anything to the 
quality of the structure of these accounts nor does it permit us to get 
on with the work that has been started, or those projects that are 
already in law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], is 
recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Hampshire has 
been patiently waiting and he has an amendment to offer. I simply state 
we have provided $352 million for highway demonstration projects. Every 
one of those projects has been either authorized or is in the process 
of being completed. Republicans and Democrats have requested them. 
First, these projects are authorized or have already been started or 
are in the process of being completed.
  Second, I would rather see, as it relates to some of these projects, 
that there be some congressional earmarking. I do not care which party 
we are from, we oftentimes identify essential programs and projects in 
our States. I do not care whose administration is in the White House, 
Republican or Democratic--the Transportation Department simply is not 
going to recognize these same needs. That is why we are elected. We are 
elected and accountable to our constituents. We may see a two-lane 
highway that has been authorized for reconstruction for 30 years but 
does not get funded--30 years, and all the while people are getting 
killed. Then a Congressman comes and says, ``My God, do something.'' 
That Congressman, he or she comes and goes. Democratic Congressmen, 
Republican Congressman, another Congressman--finally one Member is able 
to get, by way of his or her colleagues and by way of the 
Appropriations Committee, some relief. I have been through those 
situations. I have seen them. So I have to tell you, if we want to say 
wipe out all earmarking, we will be a bunch of darned fools.
  The House is not going to give up their prerogatives. Do you want to 
say in the Senate we should give up our prerogatives when it comes to 
authorized projects, priority projects and providing the funding for 
them? Is that what you want to say? OK, delude yourself, leave it to 
the bureaucracy. Oh, they really understand, do they not? How many 
times do you go over there and fight and scream with them? That is what 
we are getting down to in this debate.
  This is not an esoteric issue. Understand what we are talking about. 
Do you want to take those prerogatives away? When you have a desperate 
situation, don't you want to retain the hope that maybe some of your 
colleagues--Republicans or Democrats--can come together and say, 
``Let's address it, let's do what is right. Let's do what is 
meaningful.''
  I yield the floor. I know my colleague has an amendment to offer. He 
has been very, very patient. I apologize to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I do have a motion to offer in a moment. I 
do want to speak in support of Senator McCain's sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. It takes a lot of courage to take on the system around this 
place. Senator McCain has done that.
  I think to his credit he is not looking back at projects that are in 
the process of being completed, as the Senator from New York has just 
referred to, he is looking ahead.
  Basically, his point is that earmarking is wrong, it is not good 
policy, it is not in the best interest of all the taxpayers and all the 
voters in America, if the tax dollars are not spread truly equitably on 
a per capita basis or, for that matter, on the basis of good 
prioritization of projects. That is his point.
  It is a nonbinding sense of the Senate, but those Senators who vote 
for the McCain resolution are basically saying we ought to change this 
policy; that this is not good policy, it is not properly prioritizing 
these projects, whether they be highway, as in this case highway 
projects, transportation projects, or anything else.
  I see it in other committees in the Senate. I do not think it is good 
policy.
  So the question really is, do you want to change things, do you want 
to reform? When we hear the negatives and the criticisms that are 
directed at us in Congress, oftentimes it is because of the back-room, 
closed-door decisions that are made. It does not necessarily mean that 
someone on the Appropriations Committee, in a room of appropriators, 
who makes a decision to direct some money to a particular project in 
some State, always makes a bad decision. But what it does mean is that 
the appropriators have a tremendous amount of power. Sometimes they 
make good decisions, sometimes they do not.
  The point is, all of us--all 100 Senators--do not have an input into 
those decisions on the basis of the way the process is conducted. That 
is wrong. Earmarking is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. 
Members of the Senate know it is wrong. Those of us on the authorizing 
committees who see what the appropriators do, know it is wrong. But the 
problem is when we get down here on the floor, we have to take on the 
appropriators and we do it at great personal, political risk, because 
there is a tendency around here to say, ``Well, if they don't want to 
support the appropriations process, these Senators, we can take care of 
them when it comes time for something to come due in their State.''
  I can tell you--I think I speak for the majority of the people in my 
State. Certainly I have taken this position every year I have run, and 
I have won, so I assume I speak for the majority people in my State--
they did not send me here to see how much pork I can get for the State 
of New Hampshire. They sent me here to be fiscally responsible, which 
is leading to my next motion.
  I do not think it always works out that every one of these projects 
that comes through this earmarking is justified, and there ought to be 
a prioritization. It should not be how much seniority you have here, or 
what committee you are on, that determines whether or not a project 
goes to your State. It ought to be on the basis of fairness, equity.
  There are 250 million Americans. I daresay, if you look carefully at 
the projects that are--let us just use the transportation bill and look 
at who is on the Appropriations Committee and the States they are from, 
in both political parties--I am not trying to be political about it--
you will find a disproportionate amount of those projects going to the 
States of those on the Appropriations Committee. That is not fair to 
the rest. A highway project in California is just as important as a 
highway project in New York or New Jersey. Certainly it is to the 
people who use the highway or the transportation project in that State.
  I think Senator McCain said he was under no illusions that this 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution would be adopted. I am not either. But I 
will say for the Record that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
absolutely correct. He is right. It is a bad process, it is bad policy, 
and it ought to be changed.
  I hope that Senators will reflect very carefully before the vote and 
think about it. It is all right when you are on the receiving end, I 
suppose, but when you are on the losing end, it is not all right, 
especially for people in your State who lose more often than not if you 
are not a member of the Appropriations Committee. I think that is 
wrong.
  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add myself 
as a cosponsor to Senator McCain's resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have a motion that I send to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the motion for the 
information of the Senate.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] moves to 
     recommit H.R. 4556 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the bill to the Senate, within 3 days 
     (not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session), 
     with an amendment reducing the total appropriation provided 
     therein to a sum not greater than its fiscal year 1994 level.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is a very simple motion. It asks that 
we recommit the bill to come back with the same amount of money that 
was spent last year. That is all it does. There is nothing complicated 
about it.
  Oftentimes I come down here and pick up the reports and the documents 
and the bills, the resolutions, off my desk. For most, sometimes this 
is the first chance we get to look at it because it is printed so late. 
But in this particular case, we do not have to go past the front page 
of the report.
  The report says that last year, fiscal year 1994, we spent 
$13,589,113,194 and that the amount of the bill that we have before us 
in the Senate is $414,330,109,000.
  That means, doing my own math, that we are spending $740,995,806 more 
on this appropriations bill than we did last year. That is the bottom 
line; that is what we are doing.
  Given the debate that we hear day after day around here about fiscal 
responsibility and fiscal restraint, frankly, this bothers me. We heard 
from some of our very distinguished colleagues during the vote for a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution was unnecessary because all we have to do 
when the time comes, when the appropriations bills come, and spending 
bills come before us, is vote no; we have the authority to do that, we 
can do that and we do not need an amendment.
  True, we do have the authority to do it, but we do not do it.
  So if you think back to how close that balanced budget amendment vote 
was, it was, I think, less than a half dozen votes--three, I believe--
three votes was the difference between adopting that amendment or not.
  So here we go again, as President Reagan used to say. We wonder why 
the debt gets bigger. There is no secret. We should not have to wonder. 
The American people watching this debate should realize there is not 
anything complicated about it. As long as you send an appropriations 
bill in here that spends $740 million-plus more than last year, you are 
going to add to the deficit. When you add to the deficit, you add to 
the debt, which is already $4.5 trillion.
  The truth of the matter is we do not really care about that. We are 
perfectly willing to take this $740 million and pass it on to our kids 
and our grandchildren. I have said before in this Chamber that my 
preference would be to leave the assets that I have, if I have any when 
I die, to my children, not my debts.
  Is that not the way most people in America feel? But it is easy, is 
it not? Spend $740 million. You will hear all the good things that this 
bill does, all these wonderful, worthwhile projects. They are all 
great, all necessary, all needed, all going to help people out there 
somewhere, employ people to build something somewhere. All great.
  There is only one catch to it. We do not hear about it. We do not 
hear about it here, OK. And this is the catch. We are borrowing every 
dollar of that $740 million increase over last year. We are borrowing 
it. It is not sitting in an account somewhere in the Federal 
Government. The $740 million increase in this bill over fiscal 1994 is 
borrowed money. And if we are lucky, we will borrow it at about 7 
percent. The way things are going now with the Federal Reserve, that is 
probably going to go up, but let us just assume it is 7 percent. If we 
borrow it at 7 percent, we are going to pay $51 million in interest 
just on the $740 million that we are adding to this bill.
  Now, where I went to school, that is a lot of money. But does anybody 
really care? If any of my colleagues think we care, or if the American 
people who are watching this debate think we care, watch the vote. 
Watch the vote. It is coming shortly. It will be here within an hour or 
two. We will have a vote on this amendment, and it will be defeated, 
the same way the amendment that I offered on legislative appropriations 
was defeated when I asked then in the Chamber of the Senate a few weeks 
ago to bring it back to the current level.
  I am not cutting a nickel. I am not cutting anything out of this 
bill. I am simply asking us to come back with last year's level, live 
within last year's level. That is all I am doing. I am not cutting a 
dime. I tried it on the legislative appropriations bill, and I lost. I 
think I got 37 or 38 votes. I tried it on the Treasury-Postal bill, and 
I lost. And I am going to lose on this one. I know it. But sometimes 
you have to stand up for principle around here. The principle is that 
this is wrong. It is morally wrong to continue to do this.
  Now, we have 13 appropriations bills, and to the credit of some of 
those managers who have brought these bills in--foreign ops, military 
construction, Agriculture, and D.C. Appropriations--we are either equal 
to or less than last year's appropriations, and I commend them for 
that. That is a good, positive step. But this one is not one of those.
  We will still lose, but I am hopeful. I am hopeful that someday 
reason will prevail, because if we do not, if we are not willing to 
come in at least at current levels, if we do not cut, then there should 
not be any surprise when the debt goes up. If you borrow more money to 
run your business or your home than you did last month, it is going to 
cost you more. You are going to owe more. Is that any big surprise?
  Why are we so surprised when we hear that the debt goes up? Why are 
we so surprised when we hear that the balanced budget amendment is 
defeated? The bottom line is because we do not want to control spending 
around here, pure and simple. We just do not.
  Now, there will be plenty of reasons given, as I said, as to why this 
is a great bill and why we should spend the money. I could think of a 
lot of things I would like to have, and I am sure many of the American 
people listening to this debate would like to have, but they cannot 
have it because they do not have the money to buy it, No. 1 and, No. 2, 
if they wanted it badly enough, they could borrow it, but they could 
only borrow so much money and then they would be stopped. Everybody has 
a cap on that credit card. Everybody has a cap on that credit.
  You can only borrow so much except here in the Congress of the United 
States--unlimited credit cards; borrow whatever you want; spend 
whatever we want; pass it on to our kids. Day after day, month after 
month, year after year, we have been doing it here. And some of us 
stand up here and say it. I have been saying it for 10 years, the 10 
years I have been in Congress. I am almost exhausted. Day in and day 
out, I see the headlines in my State every time I have one of these 
things: ``Smith Defeated on Appropriations Bill''; ``Smith Defeated on 
Spending Cut''--day in and day out.
  But we heard headlines back in the 1860's about slavery, too. That 
was wrong. And sometimes those abolitionists lost, but eventually they 
won. And someday, common sense is going to prevail in this place, I 
believe. Otherwise, it will be the total economic ruin of the United 
States of America. Just like good prevailed on the slavery issue, I 
hope and pray that good and right will prevail on what we are doing to 
the economy of the United States of America. We are now a debtor nation 
and it is getting worse.
  Everybody says, well, we brought the deficit down. Yes, we did a 
little bit, but it is going to go up again before the budget balances. 
We are going to look at a deficit of $160 billion or $170 billion this 
year, maybe more. Well, that adds to the debt every time you deficit 
spend.
  So just remember, on this very bill, we are going to spend $51 
million in interest on what we are borrowing just to fund the 
increase--not what we are borrowing for the entire bill. We are 
borrowing that, too. I am just talking about what we are borrowing to 
fund the increase--$51 million, 7 percent of $740 million.
  So that is what we are doing.
  Now, OMB estimates that the Federal Government will spend more than 
$1.5 trillion in the upcoming fiscal year. That breakdown is not 
complicated. Mandatory entitlements--that is, we have to spend it 
because the law says we have to spend it--will consume $752 billion 
unless we change the law. And I know that the Senator from Nebraska, 
who is in the chair at the moment, is chairing the task force to look 
at that. I commend his leadership for it. Lord knows, it is necessary.
  The net interest on the debt--an item that is very difficult to 
reduce--will total approximately $224 billion in fiscal year 1995. The 
net interest on the debt alone will be $224 billion. And this is not a 
stable figure. This figure is going up. Every year we deficit spend, 
every year we add to the debt, we add interest. We are going to add $51 
million just on the increase to that interest figure that I just gave 
you of $224 billion.
  So if you are concerned about that, you ought to vote to recommit 
this bill and send it back and say bring it back with $740 million 
less. And, oh, you will hear the screaming. Oh, boy, you will really 
hear it. There will be a billion different excuses, more excuses than 
we have dollars in the Federal Treasury, about why we should not do it.
  But we should. Now, going down the list, again, $752 billion in 
entitlements, $224 billion in interest, about $270 billion in defense 
spending, and last but by no means least, we will spend $271 billion in 
the so-called nondefense discretionary category.
  So let me recap: Total spending, $1.5 trillion this year; total 
revenue, $1.35 trillion; total deficit, $167 billion; and the bottom 
line is total disaster, total disaster. That is a recipe for disaster, 
my colleagues, and we are right here now, we are right here now in the 
Senate adding, adding to the problem, presiding over the economic 
disaster of this country.
  Now, granted, this is a very small portion of it. It is not directed 
at the managers of the bill. But it is a very small portion. There are 
13 appropriations bills. We can make a start in that discretionary 
spending if we would just bring those 13 bills in at last year. But we 
do not do it.
  Now, people say, with the greatest respect for the Senator from 
Nebraska, who is in the chair, if we are not willing to cut $740 
million out of a $14 billion bill, how in the world are we going to 
reform entitlements? Who is going to come down here and vote to reform 
entitlements?
  Mr. President, our spending addiction has to end. Sooner or later it 
has to end. And I certainly hope it ends sooner rather than later.
  I do get tired of coming down here and offering these amendments and 
losing, quite frankly. Nobody likes to lose, least of all somebody in 
politics.
  I do not like it. But I do not care in the sense that I am willing to 
take that abuse time after time because it is right just the same way 
being opposed to slavery was right. This is right. Being opposed to 
economic disaster is right. Being fiscally responsible is right. 
Speaking out on fiscal responsibility is right. I know that our 
spending problem is not isolated in just the appropriations area. But 
these happen to be the bills that the Senate considers every year. This 
is a chance in discretionary spending. This is our chance to say that 
we want to control.
  I mentioned fiscally responsible appropriations bills that have come 
through here already. But let me briefly tell you where you are on the 
ones that were not. Already, let us add the legislative branch, which 
was over; the Treasury-postal appropriations bill which is over; and 
the one today, transportation, which is over. Those three 
appropriations bills which the Senate deals with every year about this 
time as we get the appropriations bills before us, add those three up, 
and we will get just in the amount over last year, over last year--not 
the total amounts for the three bills, just the total of what we spent 
over last year--$l.84 billion. I did not do the math. But take 7 
percent of that. You will see how many million more in interest we are 
adding to the debt just on that increase.
  I ask my colleagues with the greatest respect--some of you have been 
here a lot longer than I have--what signal does that send to the 
American people? What good does that do the United States of America to 
continue to spend more money than we take in; to always have an excuse 
when you come down on the floor for adding money to every program, 
every appropriations bill that comes through here? What signal does 
that send? They laugh at us. That is the signal it sends. They laugh at 
us because we do not have the courage to go back to our State and tell 
people the truth.
  Is that what it has come to? Go back to your State and say honestly, 
you know, ``We cannot give you that bridge or that highway. We don't 
have the money.'' We are deficit spending. We are borrowing. We are 
borrowing too much. We are now a debtor nation. We need to do the 
opposite.
  I had not planned to speak this long. But I am just hoping against 
all hope that someday, one of these days, when one of us who brings 
this up, as Senator McCain has done time and time again and others, 
someday maybe the message will get through. If it does not get to those 
of us here, hopefully, it will get through to the American people who 
send us here and who will send people here who are fiscally 
responsible.
  When I hold town meetings in New Hampshire to discuss this problem 
and talk about the need for reform, I do not hear a lot of constituents 
who say to me, ``I don't want to make any sacrifices.'' I hear the 
opposite. I hear people tell me, ``I want the budget balanced.'' I say, 
``You know, you cannot balance it if you don't cut spending.'' They 
say, ``We know.'' Obviously, nobody likes to take the hit. But what 
people do say to me is, ``OK. You can do it on this condition, we will 
accept the cuts. We are willing to look at limits perhaps in some of 
our entitlements, not cuts but limits, limits on the increases, maybe 
tagged to inflation and other programs. But we want it done fairly. We 
don't want to read that you gave the civil service retirees a COLA and 
you did not give the military retirees a COLA or you delayed one and 
you did not delay the other. That is not fair.''
  I agree with them. That is absolutely right. They do not want to read 
about some pork project, some museum, something out someplace that 
nobody ever heard of. They do not want to hear about money wasted on 
something and then find out that they are going to lose a 3-percent 
Social Security COLA. They do not want that. I do not blame them.
  So we have to start here. It is a small start, $740 million. That is 
a lot of money where I grew up. But it is a heck of a little amount of 
money compared to what we spend out of $l.5 trillion. We cannot even 
cut that. And we will not. Watch the vote. Watch them. If we get 39, I 
will be surprised. That will be a big win.
  So I am issuing a challenge out there to my colleagues for once. 
Bring this thing in as other appropriations bills have done. Bring this 
thing into a reasonable appropriation. Do not listen to the excuses. Do 
not listen to all of the reasons we should spend that $740 million. 
Forget it. Let it go in one ear and out the other, my colleagues, and 
just come in and, say, ``I am going to do what is right. We will send 
it back.'' That is all we are doing. I am willing to sit down with 
anybody on that committee or anyplace else to work out where the cuts 
can come from to get us back to where we were last year. That is all I 
am willing to do it. And it is not a cut. This is an increase. We are 
trying to drop back to last year's level.
  That is the funny thing that goes on around this place. What happens 
is all this baseline stuff. There are all of these buzz words here in 
Washington that do not mean anything to the average guy on the street. 
The average guy on the street knows we are spending more than last 
year. That is wrong. We want a balanced budget. The Senate said they 
wanted a balanced budget. But they are not doing it. They are not going 
to do it here. Are they going to balance the budget? No. It is not even 
going to come close. But you have to walk before you can run. We are 
not walking. We are not even getting off the chair, let alone walk.
  Should Federal spending on the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies be increased from last year's levels, or should it be 
exactly what it was last year? That is the question before the Senate 
with this amendment. There is nothing complicated about it. That is it; 
no secrets, no shenanigans, just that.
  Should we spend more or should we spend what we spent last year as 
the District of Columbia did and as the other bills that I cited did? 
Or put it another way: Do we owe the American people at the very 
minimum our vote to hold the line on spending? You know someday, it 
might be 25, 30, or 40 years from now, long after I will be out of this 
place because I do not expect to stay here anywhere near that long, 
somebody is going to ask us, maybe our grandchildren, maybe one of my 
grandchildren, and say, ``Hey, grandpa, where were you in the Senate 
when they destroyed the economic viability of the United States of 
America?'' I am going to tell them where I was, standing right here 
losing votes that we should have won. That is what I am going to tell 
them. My conscience is going to be very clear about it.
  Let me conclude on this point, Mr. President. I made the point pretty 
clearly. My motion is simple. It sends the bill back. It is called 
recommit. It sends it back, and says bring it out at last year's level. 
That is the least we can do. We saw the celebration of the moon 
landing. ``One small step for man, one big step for mankind.'' This is 
one small step in the budget process, but, boy, it is a big symbolic 
step. Let us do what is right just for once and exercise some fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, in the ensuing debate on my motion to recommit, there 
were some statements made about how much money New Hampshire received 
and I would like to set the record straight on that.
  This is called the Northeast-Midwest Report put out by the Northeast 
Midwest Institute, the center for regional policy on Federal spending 
in fiscal year 1992.
  The State of New Hampshire received $4.28 billion in total Federal 
spending in fiscal 1992, bringing in $3,853 for every man, woman, and 
child in the State. This level equaled only 86 percent of the U.S. per-
capita average of $4,464, placing New Hampshire 43d in the Nation in 
amounts of per-capita Federal spending. This low level of per-capita 
spending is not unusual for New Hampshire.
  And it goes on to point out that this has been the case in the past 
decade.
  Incorporation of the level of Federal taxes paid by residents of New 
Hampshire into the analysis worsened the spending picture for the 
State. On per-capita basis, each State resident paid an average of 
$4,558 in taxes to the Federal Government in 1992. The average U.S. 
per-capita tax burden was $4,150. Not only did New Hampshire receive 
less than its share of spending, it also paid more than its share in 
taxes. After adjustment for deficit spending, the return on the Federal 
dollar to New Hampshire residents was 79 cents for every $1 paid in 
taxes.
  Mr. President, I submit that for the Record, and I also ask unanimous 
consent to print that portion, which is a couple of brief paragraphs, 
in the Record that applies to New Hampshire from this report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Northeast-Midwest Report]

       Federal Spending in the Northeast and Midwest: Fiscal 1992

  The state of New Hampshire received $4.28 billion in total federal 
spending in fiscal 1992, bringing in $3,853 for every man, woman, and 
child in the state. This level equaled only 86 percent of the U.S. per-
capita average of $4,464, placing New Hampshire 43rd in the nation in 
the amount of per-capita federal spending. This low level of per-capita 
spending is not unusual for New Hampshire. In the past decade, New 
Hampshire only twice (1982 and 1984) exceeded the national per-capita 
spending average by small margins. The mid-80 percent range dominated 
the last seven years. New Hampshire ranked particularly low in salaries 
and wages paid by the federal government and in direct payments to 
individuals. The state placed last in spending per person for child 
nutrition programs and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments.
       Incorporation of the level of Federal taxes paid by 
     residents of New Hampshire into the analysis worsened the 
     spending picture for the state. On a per-capita basis, each 
     state resident paid an average of $4,558 in taxes to the 
     federal government in 1992. The average U.S. per-capita tax 
     burden was $4,150. Not only did New Hampshire receive less 
     than its share of spending, it also paid more than its share 
     in taxes. After adjustment for deficit spending, the return 
     on the federal dollar to New Hampshire residents was only 
     $0.79 for every $1.00 paid in taxes. This return placed the 
     state 46th among all states in return on the federal tax 
     dollar. If New Hampshire had received federal spending at the 
     same percent it paid in taxes, the state would have received 
     an additional $1.17 billion, or 27.3 percent more. As with 
     per-capita spending, the historical return on the federal 
     dollar in New Hampshire remained below average.

  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with, as you can imagine, 
intense interest as our colleague from New Hampshire took the position 
that we are fiscally irresponsible. That is what our colleague from New 
Hampshire said. He said, ``Why is not this bill fiscally responsible 
like some of the others?'' Well, the reverse of ``responsible'' is 
``irresponsible.''
  We will deal with the whole litany and the whole argument presented 
by our colleague in the few minutes that we have.
  I guess it feels good to be the only one in this body who is 
principled. You heard the statements: We give away the store; we saddle 
our kids with debt; we do terrible things to people. Perhaps that is 
the view of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think we work pretty darn 
hard here, and I think we are a responsible body. If he wants to 
isolate a few who are irresponsible, he ought to name them. But to 
listen to this diatribe about how principled someone is, while the rest 
of us go lurking around corners trying to hide our faces from the shame 
and disgrace of our performance here--not this Senator, nor the Senator 
in that chair. We have each done our part for our country--the three 
people in this room--I in World War II, and the two of you in Vietnam. 
I try to serve as well as I can, and if I make mistakes, I make 
mistakes. But if I make a mistake, it is a genuine missed opportunity.
  I want to point out something, Mr. President. The State of New 
Hampshire is a donee State. You do not have to be a Member of the U.S. 
Senate to understand what is a donee State. But in case you do not 
understand I will explain it for the benefit of my colleague, who wants 
everything cut and refuses to recognize the good that has been done 
here. We are only talking about the evil that lurks through these 
Chamber Halls. A donee State is a State that gets more Federal aid 
highway apportionments than it sends down to Washington. For the 
benefit of my colleagues' review, I want to tell them that New 
Hampshire gets $1.40 in Federal aid highway apportionments for every 
dollar in Federal gas taxes they send down. I ask the citizens of this 
country, is that a good deal? Send down a dollar and you get a $1.40 
back. You do not have to take a chance on the lottery. Since 1956, New 
Hampshire has been willing to take $1.45 for every buck they send down 
to Washington.
  Send the money back and be responsible. Tell them you do not need it, 
you do not want it, you are content with the congestion on your roads 
in New Hampshire. We did not need the bridge we set aside money for in 
Nashua. Tell them that when Senator Rudman was here and appealed for 
funds for the Pease Air Force Base conversion and that money was made 
available, but it is time to return it. Be responsible. Stand up and do 
your duty.
  Mr. President, I think it might be worth just a quick review of where 
we are going. The Senator accuses us of being casual, irresponsible, 
unconcerned, saddling our kids with debt. But I would like to make the 
record clear that in fiscal year 1990, Mr. President, the deficit for 
this country, under the leadership of President Bush, was $221 billion. 
He managed to push it up in fiscal year 1991 to $269 billion. By fiscal 
year 1992, he was really on a roll, up to $292 billion. In fiscal year 
1993, his last year, the deficit was $254 billion. In fiscal year 1994, 
it started coming down. That was the first year of President Clinton's 
budget. It was $220 billion. In fiscal year 1995, it is estimated to be 
$156 billion. I think that is pretty responsible, Mr. President. Only 
if you want to turn the arithmetic the other way does it become 
irresponsible.
  Is it not our responsibility as Representatives of the people of our 
States to make sure that we concern ourselves with the priorities for 
this Nation and try to move those things that are priorities to the top 
of the ladder? There are programs I can agree with that ought to be cut 
dramatically. But where do we cut in this bill? Just look at the number 
of requests that we get on things. In one category of projects 
requested by Senators, 84 Senators put in requests for funds for their 
States. I guess they are the irresponsible ones, Mr. President. They 
must be the irresponsible ones. Only 84 out of 100. That leaves 16 
good, clean, hardy souls, but 84 are bad guys and women.
  Mr. President, we have heard these speeches before, and we will hear 
them some more. I agree that total Federal discretionary spending ought 
to be frozen or reduced. I voted for something that the Presiding 
Officer proposed as a deficit cutting program, over a period of 5 
years. That is why I voted for a cut of over $20 billion when the 
Senate considered the budget resolution. It is why I voted against the 
final budget resolution when it did not contain the same level of 
savings. I do not agree that spending in each area of the Federal 
activity ought to have the same priority. I would like to know where 
the Senator from New Hampshire would have us cut drug enforcement 
agents, maybe FBI--yes, we can cut them. How about border patrols; let 
us cut them. He said, ``cut everything you can.'' Let us cut them. 
Stand up here and ask for cuts in those sensitive programs. Ask for 
cuts in some of the education funds. Ask for cuts in crime fighting. 
Ask for cuts in community policing. Name the specifics, take the tough 
ones first. Do not just give that blanket sweep of cut, cut, cut, 
because ``I am the only principled Member of this body.''
  No, Mr. President, it does not wash. As a matter of fact, even this 
motion to recommit does not require a freeze on all accounts. The 
motion does not say that spending in each area of this bill--transit, 
FAA, highways, Coast Guard--ought to be the same as last year. The 
motion allows increases in some areas, as long as total spending in all 
areas is constant. Well, that is precisely what we have done with 
overall discretionary spending. It is frozen. But we have made priority 
judgments about various activities within that freeze. Those priorities 
were reflected in the 602(b) allocations made by the full 
Appropriations Committee. Some subcommittees were given more money than 
last year and some were given less. But the total spending of all 
subcommittees combined was frozen. That is the only way we can 
establish priorities, and that is to address increased needs and reduce 
spending for less critical programs.
  This is not esoteric Washington budget talk. It is what families do 
every day. Families in New Jersey and families in Nebraska are no 
different than families in New Hampshire. They are just as concerned 
about the well-being of their offspring and the passing along of values 
to them. There is no State that has a priority on good example.
  Suppose a family's income stays constant from one year to another. 
Let us say that the family had $30,000 in 1993 and $30,000 in 1994. But 
between 1993 and 1994 one child went off to college.
  The family's budget must reflect that new fact. The family has to 
increase spending on education and decrease spending somewhere else.
  It would be absurd if the family was forced to tell the child that he 
or she could not go to college next year because that would require 
more spending on education than they did last year.
  That is what we are seeing here. It is equally absurd to say that we 
cannot spend more on transportation this year than we did last year if 
we agree that it is a priority and if we keep total spending constant.
  That is precisely what is being recommended.
  The motion to recommit is based on a static view of deficit 
reduction. It does not recognize changing priorities, the need to 
address problems and to make new investments.
  Again, I tell my colleagues that this bill is consistent with a 
freeze in total Federal spending. It is consistent with the priorities 
established in the budget. It is consistent with our need to modernize 
our infrastructure.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, when we take up the vote, I am 
going to move to table the motion. I ask if the Senator from New 
Hampshire will agree to having the vote stacked with the other votes on 
the two McCain amendments that will come just before final passage of 
the transportation bill. If that is the case, then I ask unanimous 
consent that that be the order.
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator from New Hampshire has no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have an amendment by the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. It has been, to 
my understanding, cleared by the Republican manager.
  Mr. D'AMATO. We have no objection.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And we ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending question will 
be set aside in order for the Senator to offer the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2334

  (Purpose: To require and provide, from existing funds, funds for a 
  follow-up study to the vision waiver study program initiated by the 
            Secretary of Transportation in fiscal year 1992)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2334.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 346. (a) Notwithstanding section 31136(e) of title 49, 
     United States Code, and in order to further substantiate 
     research carried out by the Secretary of Transportation in 
     fiscal year 1992 under the Vision Waiver Study Program, the 
     Secretary shall use funds available to the Secretary in the 
     Highway Research Development and Technology account of the 
     Federal Highway Administration to carry out a follow-up study 
     to such study program.
       (b) In carrying out the follow-up study, the Secretary 
     shall apply the same criteria and conditions to the study as 
     the Secretary applied in carrying out research under the 
     Vision Waiver Study Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2334) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:20 
p.m. the Senate resume consideration of the committee amendment on page 
33, line 9; that Senator McCain be recognized to make a motion to table 
that committee amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment the 
Senate turn to the McCain amendment, No. 2333, and vote on or in 
relation to that amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment the 
Senate vote on or in relation to the Smith motion to recommit; that 
upon disposition of that motion, the remaining committee amendment be 
agreed to and that no other amendments be in order prior to the 
disposition of the amendments and the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who seeks 
recognition?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


excepted committee amendment on page 30, line 9, through page 31, line 
                                   7

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the committee amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the committee amendment on page 30, line 9. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the motion to table the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Vote on Excepted Committee Amendment at Page 30, Line 9, through Page 
                               31, Line 7

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
amendment.
  The committee amendment (page 30, line 9, through page 31, line 7) 
was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2333

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous unanimous-consent agreement, 
the question is now on the McCain amendment No. 2333.
  Is there further debate?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wofford

                                NAYS--37

     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Kassebaum
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2333) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to be sure what the next order of business is. 
Would the Chair respond, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question pending is on the motion of the 
Senator from New Hampshire to recommit the bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to table the Smith motion, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Smith motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--28

     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                  preservation of rail freight service

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize a matter of extreme 
importance to my State of Rhode Island, namely the preservation of rail 
freight service.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have long been and continue to be a 
strong supporter of high speed rail, particularly along the Northeast 
corridor. The Senator from New Jersey and manager of this bill has been 
of great help in shepherding this vision to reality, and I thank him 
for his leadership.
  When I started this crusade in the 1960's, I lamented the fact that 
passenger rail service was the stepchild of freight service. Now with 
the institutionalization of Amtrak and high speed passenger service, 
the former stepchild frequently finds itself in conflict with its 
parent, sometimes to an overwhelming degree.
  In Rhode Island, it is becoming increasingly clear that an unintended 
consequence of the electrification project will be to impede existing 
freight operations. The plans to electrify the corridor pose numerous 
operational and structural difficulties to the current freight 
operations. The proposed solution entails the construction of a 22-mile 
track, some 10 miles of which already exists, which would be dedicated 
to freight and light rail operations.
  This freight rail project is the single most important project for 
the future of Rhode Island and there is I believe a legitimate question 
as to how much help we can reasonably expect from other sources. Amtrak 
has a statutory obligation to assure that its work along the corridor 
does not interfere with current freight rail operations, and I believe 
that Amtrak has a clear obligation to allow for the planning and 
eventual introduction of modern freight services to the area. The 
Federal Railroad Administration, similarly, recognizes the impact 
caused by electrification and has been striving to develop a solution 
which will be acceptable to both Amtrak and Rhode Island. By whatever 
means, it is crucial that this project be designed and built in 
conjunction with the electrification project in order to ensure both 
proper engineering and cost savings.

  Additionally, Mr. President, from the perspective of safety, I know 
Amtrak would prefer to separate their fast-moving passenger trains from 
the slower-moving freight trains. I strongly believe that we should be 
moving more vigorously to implement a national policy of separating the 
two to avoid future disasters on our Nation's tracks.
  For all these reasons, I am very pleased that the House of 
Representatives saw fit to provide $10 million for design and 
construction of Rhode Island's third track project, and I will be frank 
to say that I am very disappointed the Senate bill does not have a 
comparable provision. I fervently hope the conferees will accept the 
House provision.
  Through the series of meetings and conversations that I have had with 
my colleague from New Jersey, I know that he is acutely aware of my 
concerns regarding this project. As New England continues to struggle 
out of a prolonged recession, this project could have a great 
beneficial impact on our region.

  Mr. President, passenger and freight rail service are not mutually 
exclusive. As a national policy, we must ensure that freight rail 
operations are not disrupted or hampered in the process of 
electrification. We can little afford passenger rail service at the 
expense of freight operations, which are of immense importance to the 
economic future of our country. Rail transportation--both passenger and 
freight--offers our country significant economic and environmental 
benefits that would be lost if there were to be a further shift of 
traffic from the tracks to our already congested highways. Thus, as we 
work to improve our country's passenger rail system, we must take 
necessary steps to prevent the deterioration of our freight operations. 
Indeed, passenger and freight rail service have previously coexisted 
and, with proper coordination and cooperation, can continue to do so 
and prosper.
  So from that perspective, I hope that Rhode Island's experience, and 
the remedy which we envision, can be instructive in the evolution of 
national policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The question is on the remaining 
committee amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the remaining 
committee amendments.


 Vote on Excepted Committee Amendments on Page 22, Line 3 and on Page 
                               31, Line 7

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the committee amendments.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            ministerial road

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the chairman, Senator Lautenberg, and the ranking member, Senator 
D'Amato, of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies of 
the Appropriations Committee for including funds in H.R. 4556 that I 
requested for Ministerial Road in Rhode Island. Section 324 of H.R. 
4556 provides $100,000 of existing funds that has already been 
appropriated for scenic byways to provide assistance to a community 
group incorporated for the purpose of protecting the scenic qualities 
of a designated scenic byway. The intent of this provision is to 
provide the existing $100,000 to the Ministerial Road Preservation 
Association for the purpose of developing and evaluating alternative 
design standards for Ministerial Road in Rhode Island. I would ask the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member if they agree with my 
characterization of section 324?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. The intent 
of section 324 is to direct the Federal Highway Administration to 
provide these funds to the Ministerial Road Preservation Association in 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators for their response, and again thank 
them for including these funds for Ministerial Road.


                  springfield-niobrara bridge project

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like to call upon the 
distinguished chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, to discuss a matter related to the 
Springfield-Niobrara bridge project, a joint venture between the states 
of Nebraska an South Dakota.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with the 
Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Before I begin discussing the Springfield-Niobrara 
bridge, I would like to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for the 
outstanding leadership he has provided the Senate with an 
appropriations bill that, once again, recognizes the importance of a 
quality infrastructure to our country's economy and balances the large 
number of requests offered by individual Senators.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I want to take just a brief portion of the Senate's time 
to point out my strong support for the Springfield-Niobrara project and 
to encourage the members of the conference committee to afford it every 
consideration during its proceedings. This project did not receive 
funding on the Senate side, but did receive a $2 million appropriation 
in the House version of the fiscal year 1995 Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  As the distinguished chairman knows, the Springfield-Niobrara bridge 
originally was authorized in the Surface Transportation and Relocation 
Act of 1987. It enjoys broad-based local support and has been on the 
priority lists of both the South Dakota and Nebraska Departments of 
Transportation.
  Once completed, this bridge will have a positive impact on economic 
development in the Niobrara and Springfield areas. Over the course of 
the past couple of years, I have heard from a number of small business 
people, including the managers of farm cooperatives, who have indicated 
the benefits this bridge will provide for local commerce.
  Just as important is the increased access this will provide to area 
health care facilities. A couple of years ago, the Indian Health 
Services [IHS] constructed a hospital in Wagner, SD. The completion of 
the Springfield-Niobrara project will significantly increase the number 
of people who can be served by that facility, including a number of 
people from the Santee Sioux Reservation in Niobrara, NE. Enhancing 
access to quality health care is an extremely important concern for 
rural America. Clearly, the Springfield project will help meet this 
challenge.
  Again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his 
assistance and urge his consideration of this important project as the 
appropriations process works its way to the conference committee.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senator from South Dakota bringing 
his concerns to my attention. As I have stated, the conference 
committee plans on incorporting projects that were funded in the House 
side in the final version of the fiscal year 1995 Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his support and 
attention to this project.


                      roanoke regional airport, va

  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman in a brief colloquy pertaining to 
terminal air traffic control facilities at the Roanoke Regional 
Airport.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be pleased to engage my good friend and 
colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. The committee has graciously included language in its 
report directing the FAA to provide first phase funding for the 
construction of terminal air traffic control facilities at the Roanoke 
Regional Airport in Roanoke, VA. However, the Committee Report includes 
conflicting language in the narrative section--page 78--which defers 
funding for the Roanoke Airport project. I understand this 
contradiction is due to an editing oversight and that you intend to 
correct the language for the final report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Virginia is correct. The sentence, 
on page 78 of the report will be edited to delete the reference to 
Roanoke, VA.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the chairman for correcting the oversight, and I 
yield the floor.


                       westchester county airport

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise to discuss a significant 
aviation issue with the distinguished chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee, Senator Ford.
  As the Senator may know, the county of Westchester has sought my 
support for enactment of a provision to ensure that the Airport and 
Airways Improvement Act is clear that the exemption in 49 United States 
Code, section 2210(a)(12) with respect to provisions enacted before 
September 3, 1982, in governing statutes controlling the owner or 
operator's financing, included the provisions of the Laws of 
Westchester County, NY, in effect on September 3, 1982, regarding 
airport finances for the Westchester County Airport.
  Mr. FORD. Yes, I appreciate the Senator bringing to my attention the 
issues affecting Westchester County Airport. As we have discussed, many 
other airports find themselves in similar situations. This issue, 
particularly for airports like Westchester with longstanding financing 
commitments in effect prior to September 3, 1982, apparently was raised 
as a result of a recent DOT IG review of airport financing.
  Mr.  D'AMATO.  I  understand  that  S. 1491, the Federal Aviation 
Administration Authorization Act of 1993, which passed the Senate in 
June, contains provisions that would satisfy the concerns of 
Westchester County and clearly ``grandfather'' in the provisions in 
their governing statutes in effect on September 3, 1982, controlling 
airport revenues. Does the Senator agree that S. 1491 would resolve 
this matter?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, that is clearly our intent. The Aviation Subcommittee 
did not intend for airports like Westchester County Airport to have to 
vitiate longstanding financing practices which were in effect prior to 
September 3, 1982, and which could unravel carefully crafted agreements 
that enable airports to coexist as good neighbors in the community.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I also understand that it is the Senator's intent to 
bring this matter to closure in a conference with the House before the 
Senate adjourns for the summer.
  Mr. FORD. Yes, as soon as the House appoints conferees to its 
companion bill, H.R. 2739, we will work together to resolve this 
matter.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the chairman.


                          sidney lanier bridge

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I rise today to express my 
appreciation to Senator D'Amato and Senator Lautenberg for their 
willingness to address my concerns regarding H.R. 4556, the fiscal year 
1995 Transportation appropriations bill. I had hoped that funding for 
the Sidney Lanier Bridge would have been recommended within the 
approximately $352 million provided for such projects under the Surface 
Transportation Projects Program by the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
Rather, the committee instead directed the Secretary of Transportation 
to give priority designation to the Sidney Lanier Bridge for funding 
from the secretary's bridge discretionary funds. Unfortunately, the 
Sidney Lanier Bridge is ineligible for funding under the Discretionary 
Bridge Program. The bridge has a rating of over 300 under the rating 
formula used by the Federal Highway Administration, and only projects 
with a rating factor of 100 or below are eligible.
  Consequently, in order for this bridge to receive vital replacement 
funds, it must receive funding as a Surface Transportation Project. I 
have deep concerns regarding the safety of the existing bridge. Ten 
people have lost their lives in ship collisions involving the Sidney 
Lanier Bridge. Congress declared the bridge a navigational hazard and 
authorized its replacement in the 1990 Federal Maritime Commission 
Authorization Act of 1990, title II, section 302. Because of this 
extreme safety concern, I wonder if my friends from New York and New 
Jersey could give me some assurance about the possibility of the Senate 
accepting the House's provision of $4,000,000 for the Sidney Lanier 
Bridge as a Surface Transportation Project?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I understand the extreme safety concerns that exist at 
the Sidney Lanier Bridge in Brunswick, GA, and in fact, as the Senator 
knows, the committee included the bridge as a priority under the 
Secretary's Discretionary Bridge Program. The committee was unaware at 
the time, though, that the bridge would not qualify for funds under the 
Discretionary Bridge Program. I want to assure the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia that I will do everything I can to include funding 
for the Sidney Lanier Bridge as a Surface Transportation Project during 
the conference on this bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let me add my assurances that I am also aware of the 
severe safety concerns that the Senator from Georgia has regarding the 
Sidney Lanier Bridge, and we will do our best to provide every 
consideration for the bridge as a Surface Transportation Project during 
conference.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the distinguished Senators from New York and 
New Jersey, and yield the floor.


                      FAA's contract tower program

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, prior to passage of H.R. 4556, I would 
like to seek clarification from the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Lautenberg] regarding language affecting the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Contract Tower Program. In this legislation, the 
Appropriations Committee specified that Grand Prairie, TX, Municipal 
Airport, and the Anoka County Airport in Minnesota be included in the 
Contract Tower Program from existing resources.
  I say to the distinguished Chairman I am concerned over the impact 
this might have on other airports in the program in fiscal year 1995. 
In particular, I have been told the Naples Municipal Airport is very 
high on the FAA's priority list for inclusion into this program. 
Accordingly, I ask the Chairman if it is his intention for the FAA to 
go forward and continue to provide funds for additional airports to be 
included in the Contract Tower Program.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to my friend from Florida that I appreciate his 
concerns with respect to the Naples Municipal Airport, and his interest 
in the FAA's Contract Tower Program. It is my expectation the FAA will 
continue to provide funds to include additional airports in the 
Contract Tower Program. In addition, should the Naples Municipal 
Airport fail to be included in the program in the upcoming fiscal year, 
I would be pleased to work with my good friend next year to ensure this 
airport is a participant in the program in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the chairman for his clarification and assurances.


tucson van tran paratransit facility and sun tran alternatively fueled 
                           replacement buses

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, it is my understanding that the 
pending bill does not include any discretionary funding for projects 
that were included in the House Committee on Appropriations Report on 
H.R. 4556, the Department of Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995, under the Federal Transit 
Administration [FTA] bus and bus facilities section.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Arizona is correct.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. It is also my understanding that the House report did 
include $10 million in funding two city of Tucson mass transit 
projects.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is also correct.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention 
of the Senate and the bill manager that these two projects are 
consistent with the mass transit, alternative fuel, and disability/
access goals of the Senate, and the whole Congress, as authorized under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA], 
the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] and the Clean Air Act [CAA]. 
The first project would provide funds to assist in the construction of 
a new Van Tran paratransit facility. The Federal Transit Administration 
[FTA] reviewed the Van Tran paratransit facility project and determined 
that the project was highly justified, and encouraged the city to 
pursue discretionary funding for the paratransit facility. To further 
improve Tucson's fixed route transit system, Sun Tran, the second 
project would replace aging buses with 24, full-size, fully accessible, 
alternatively fueled buses.
  These two projects will utilize innovative state-of-the-art 
technologies to increase mass transit ridership and improve community 
air quality goals, as well as to support accessibility and mobility of 
persons with disabilities in Arizona's Pima County--one of the Nation's 
fastest growing metropolitan areas.
  I urge that my colleagues give every consideration in conference to 
both the Tucson Van Tran Paratransit Operations and Maintenance 
facility and Tucson Sun Tran alternative-fuel bus replacement project.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator has my assurance that the Van Tran 
Paratransit facility and the Sun Tran buses will be fully considered 
during conference on the final bill. I will also note for the Record 
that the subcommittee included $6.5 million for an alternative fuel bus 
replacement project for the city of Phoenix in its recommendations to 
the full committee, and the committee subsequently approved the 
recommendations of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the chairman very much for his willingness to 
consider these city of Tucson projects and again thank him for his 
support for the city of Phoenix project. As this will be my final year 
in service with my very good friend from New Jersey, I want to take 
this opportunity to also extend to him my sincerest gratitude for his 
friendship and counsel and support over the past 12 years. Without 
Senator Lautenberg's assistance, the State of Arizona would have been 
at a great disadvantage in securing its fair share of Federal highway 
dollars given its status as a donor State in terms of highway funding. 
Under his stewardship, the citizens of Arizona have been treated very 
generously. For that, all Arizonans are in his debt.
  I would add that a great deal of my praise for Senator Lautenberg is 
due to the extraordinary work of his subcommittee staff. Pat McCann, 
Peter Rogoff, and Joyce Rose are among the most professional and 
amiable congressional staffers I have ever had the pleasure of working 
with or knowing. Together with the fine work of Anne Miano of Senator 
D'Amato's minority staff, his entire subcommittee staff exhibits the 
best work ethic and produces the best work product in Congress. I know 
my friend from New Jersey is, and should be, very proud of each of 
them.


                   kuakini street improvement project

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, my distinguished colleagues from New 
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation, and Senator D'Amato, as ranking 
minority member, have been most sensitive and accommodating in 
addressing the unique concerns of my State. I wish to thank them for 
this consideration.
  While I understand that because of the budgetary problems we must all 
acknowledge, some projects that are most worthy have had to be set 
aside and not funded, I wish to bring to my colleague's attention a 
particular project of importance not only to Hawaii's transportation 
needs, but also Hawaii's health care needs--the Kuakini Street 
Improvement Project, a public-private initiative to reduce traffic 
congestion around the Kuakini Medical Center in Honolulu, HI.
  Currently, Kuakini Street operates as a two-lane--one lane in each 
direction--roadway fronting Kuakini Medical Center, with parking 
permitted on both sides of the street. Under present conditions, a 
vehicle attempting to enter Kuakini Medical Center causes an instant 
queue behind it until an acceptable gap in the opposing traffic occurs. 
Kuakini Medical Center's planned facilities expansion, already approved 
by the Honolulu City Council, will further exacerbate the traffic 
demands on Kuakini Street. Further, to accommodate the projected 
increase in traffic demands, the road must be widened, and as a result, 
on-street parking on Kuakini Street must be permanently removed.
  The road widening initiative and construction of the new parking 
facility is critical for Kuakini Medical Center to continue to provide 
the full spectrum of hospital and health care services in the State of 
Hawaii and to accommodate Kuakini Street's growing traffic burden.
  This project is among those authorized by the House-passed National 
Highway System authorization bill.
  I hope the Senator from New Jersey will include funding for this 
worthy project during the conference committee's consideration of this 
bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to assure my friend from Hawaii that 
this project will receive my careful consideration and attention as 
this legislation is addressed in conference with the House.
  (At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the following colloquy was ordered 
to be printed in the Record):


                     transit planning and research

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Related Agencies a question of a clarifying nature. 
This question is with regard to the committee's provision of $10 
million to augment the Federal Transit Administration's [FTA] transit 
research program.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be pleased to respond to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. As the chairman knows, my State of California has been in 
the forefront of developing electric and alternative fuel technology 
for application in transit systems nationwide. The U.S. Department of 
Transportation has been a leader in promoting these efforts through its 
funding of the Advanced Transportation Technology and Electric Transit 
Program, as authorized by section 6071 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation and Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. As the chairman knows I have 
requested assistance to ensure that this vital program, which funds 
alternative fuel transit programs in Maryland, New York, North 
Carolina, and California, will receive continued FTA funding.
  I am pleased that the committee has increased the amount of funding 
for the National Transit Planning and Research Program. It is my 
understanding that the committee expects that the funding available 
under this substantially increased program should be sufficient to 
advance the administration's transit research projects as well as those 
transportation technology projects identified by the committee in its 
report accompanying the bill and that these projects would include 
those authorized by section 6071 of the ISTEA.
  I ask the chairman if that understanding is consistent with the 
intent of the committee?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, that is my understanding as well.


           Amendment Nos. 2335, 2336, 2337 and 2338, En Bloc

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I have four technical amendments 
that have been cleared on both sides. I send these amendments to the 
desk, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2335, 2336, 2337 and 2338, en bloc.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2335

       (Purpose: To provide funds for a rail relocation project in 
     Lafayette, IN)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG offered amendment No. 2335 for Mr. Coats.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 70, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 346. Of the funds appropriated in the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1977 
     (Public Law 94-387; 90 Stat. 1171) for railroad-highway 
     demonstration projects, $486,000 in unobligated balances 
     shall be made available for the rail relocation project in 
     Lafayette, Indiana.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2336

  Mr. LAUTENBERG offered amendment No. 2336 for himself.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Sec.   . The Eastport Port Authority facility at Estes Head 
     in Eastport, Maine, is eligible for funding under section 
     1064 of Public Law 102-240.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2337

              (Purpose: Technical and conforming changes)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG offered amendment No. 2337 for himself.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 35, line 20, delete: ``Provided,''.
       On page 35, line 22, restore: ``Provided further,''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2338

  Mr. LAUTENBERG offered amendment No. 2338 for himself.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 41, line 14, strike ``That no such funds shall be 
     made available for obligation by individuals other than the 
     Secretary of Transportation or his designee'' and insert: 
     ``that such amounts shall only be available to the Secretary 
     of Transportation and the National Institute of Environmental 
     Health Sciences''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered and agreed to en bloc.
  So the amendments (Nos. 2335, 2336, 2337, and 2338) were agreed to, 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are awaiting clearance on an 
amendment that may require a vote if it is not accepted. I anticipate 
knowing in a very short period of time.
  We have a meeting going on in the Cloakroom. It will be just a matter 
of moments before we will have a decision. I leave it up to the floor 
managers to either suggest the absence of a quorum or continue.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to propose an amendment 
to the Department of Transportation Appropriations bill. On March 17 of 
this year, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park 
Service jointly published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking concerning overflights of National Park Service 
units.
  Section 104 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 provides every 
citizen a public right of transit through navigable airspace of the 
United States. Section 306 of this act requires the Administrator of 
the FAA to give full consideration to the requirements of national 
defense, commercial, and general aviation.
  In addition, the Alaska National Interests Land Act protects the 
rights of pilots to fly over and land on public lands. My amendment 
protects those rights.
  My home State of Alaska depends upon air transportation for access to 
many of its towns and villages. A road system similar to the lower 48 
does not exist. Alaska has 70 percent of all National Park Service 
acreage. This represents 15 percent of all the land in Alaska.
  In Denali National Park which is one of the most desirable 
destinations for tourists, the road into Denali is a 90 mile trail, 
mainly of dirt. A limited number of tourists and Alaskans can board a 
bus to enter Denali. Some tourists leave disappointed after having 
traveled so far and then being denied entry. Commercial airtours 
provide more opportunities for visitors to see Denali. Disabled 
tourists often utilize these commercial airtours as their only way of 
seeing the park.
  In addition, units of the Pacific Air Force depend upon Alaska for 
training operation that require large expanses of open areas with 
little or no resident population. Airspace over national parks in 
Alaska and elsewhere has been used by the military in the past on 
numerous occasions.
  The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerns noise levels which may or 
may not impact National Park system units in Alaska and elsewhere. As 
the notice states, ``No studies that evaluate long-term effects on 
wildlife have been conducted.'' Question No. 2 of the notice then asks 
``Should action pertaining to aircraft overflights in national parks be 
considered only for air-tour sightseeing operations? What circumstances 
would include other categories of overflights?''
  Madam President, I have no intention or desire of interfering or 
restricting the FAA's mandate to provide for safe airspace. There are 
restrictions and requirements such as monitoring a specific frequency 
near Denali driven by safety concerns. I support these safety 
requirements as do many, if not all, of my colleagues.
  Madam President, in closing I ask my colleagues three questions. Will 
visitors to parks be deprived of seeing large amounts of Alaska? Will 
inholders not be able to access their homes? And will the military not 
be allowed to train its pilots? I certainly hope not and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Ford, in particular for 
accepting my amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The managers' report has already been sent up and 
approved. We have these two simple amendments that have been agreed to 
by both sides, if the Senator wants to offer them; otherwise, I will 
just send them up.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will just offer it.


                           Amendment No. 2339

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2339.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert. ``No money may be 
     expended by the Department of Transportation in Fiscal Year 
     1995 to implement or enforce regulatory actions to restrict 
     overflights and landings on National Parks system units, 
     National Forest systems, Fish and Wildlife refuges, and other 
     public lands in the State of Alaska. The term aircraft refers 
     to fixed wing aircraft and helicopters of general, 
     commercial, or military nature.''

  Madam President, the amendment has been approved by both sides.
  I thank the managers and I thank my colleagues for accepting the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2339) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2340

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I have one other amendment I send to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. It has been cleared on both sides. It 
has to do with flight service. I offer it on behalf of Senator 
Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for Mr. Murkowski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2340:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following: 
     ``No funds under this act for fiscal year 1995 may be used to 
     implement recommendations of the Flight Service Modernization 
     Program to close or reduce services in flight servicestations 
     in Alaska.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2340) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Transportation appropriation bill 
contains critical funding for the Nation's transportation 
infrastructure programs for all modes of transportation--from highways 
and bridges, to mass transit capital and operating grants, to Amtrak, 
to airport construction, and to the Coast Guard's capital and operating 
costs.
  As we all are aware, there has been a large shortfall in all areas of 
transportation funding for a number of years. We have all seen the 
reports of backlogs that exist in repair and maintenance of our 
Nation's highways and bridges. The failure adequately to repair and 
maintain our transportation infrastructure is very costly to the 
Nation--in terms of higher costs caused by delays in getting products 
to their destinations as well as in getting people to and from work, 
and, tragically, in terms of lives that are lost when a bridge 
collapses or when some other failure to adequately maintain our 
transportation system results in a tragic accident.
  In addition to these reasons for my strong support of transportation 
funding, the fact is that transportation construction projects are very 
effective in putting people to work. For every $1 billion spent on 
highway construction, for example, 10,640 direct jobs are created, as 
well as 13,660 additional, so-called ripple effect jobs that are 
indirectly created throughout the economy.
  For these reasons, Madam President, I have done my best each year to 
allocate the greatest possible amount of funds to the Transportation 
Subcommittee. This year, for example, the Transportation Subcommittee's 
allocation is $150 million in budget authority and $155 million in 
outlays above the House allocation.
  Madam President, many tough decisions had to be made by the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Mr. Lautenberg, and the ranking member, Mr. 
D'Amato, to meet our unmet and critical infrastructure needs, and they 
are to be highly commended for their hard work.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am very concerned that this bill is 
sending mixed messages to Americans regarding public transportation. At 
the same time that the bill makes significant commitments to transit 
capital funding, it includes significant cuts in transit operating 
assistance.
  Mr. President, it makes no sense to be building new buses, if our 
communities can no longer afford to operate those buses. Transit 
operating assistance is exactly what is needed to keep fares low, so 
that passengers can continue to use public transportation.
  This funding is particularly important for my State of Wisconsin, 
which relies exclusively on bus service as the only mode of public 
transportation. Further, the most populous areas of Wisconsin also 
happen to be nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act. At the same 
time that we are encouraging the people of southeastern Wisconsin to 
reduce their use of automobiles through the Clean Air Act, we are also 
undercutting their efforts to do so by reducing their transit operating 
assistance.
  As the fiscal year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill goes to 
conference, I will be working with conferees to fund transit operating 
assistance at the highest possible level.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Lautenberg for his 
excellent leadership in guiding a sound transportation appropriations 
bill through the Senate Appropriations Committee and on to the floor of 
the U.S. Senate.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the 
Commerce Committee, I have enjoyed working closely with Chairman 
Lautenberg on many transportation safety issues. I would like to make a 
few comments regarding funding of the Department of Transportation 
[DOT] Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS]. This agency has needed increased 
resources for inspectors and research to do the job that the Congress 
and American people have asked them to do over the years. The Colonial 
Pipeline accident in Virginia last year and a natural gas pipeline 
accident in Edison, NJ, reminded the Nation of the importance of OPS' 
work. In light of that responsibility, OPS requested a $16.2 million 
increase in its budget for fiscal year 1995.
  Next year Congress will reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act. As the 
chairman with oversight responsibility for OPS I look forward to 
getting a full report on the use of these increased appropriations, the 
priorities of the office, and how many staff functions have been 
filled. In this time of fiscal restraint, the American people expect a 
full accounting of even worthy expenditures.
  I am pleased to note that the Transportation Appropriations Committee 
report requests that OPS coordinate with Federal and State agencies, 
the pipeline industry, and other interested parties to organize a 
technical conference on OPS' mapping proposal. I expect OPS to come 
before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee next year prepared to 
present options for mapping initiatives and the proposed total cost for 
each option. The subcommittee must be assured that OPS is spending its 
budget wisely. OPS should not duplicate efforts that are already being 
done by other agencies or overlook opportunities to use readily 
accessible existing State, local, and private sector map data. Mr. 
President, I commend Chairman Lautenberg for his leadership. As always 
it is a pleasure to work closely with him to advance transportation 
safety.


                   a bill vital to our infrastructure

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to express my compliments to the 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], his 
subcommittee, and his staff, especially Pat McCann and Peter Rogoff, 
for having brought to the Senate a bill that I believe does the best 
job it is possible to do in caring for our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure needs under the fiscal constraints imposed by our 
efforts to reduce the budget deficit.
  Of special interest to me is the funding provided for vital national 
programs, including Transit Operating Assistance on which so many 
cities depend in order to move the great numbers of people to and from 
their work and for other purposes on a day-in, day-out basis, and Next 
Generation High Speed Rail which is of such tremendous potential 
importance to our Nation both to improve the mobility of our population 
and to retain leadership in this key industry.
  Of tremendous importance to the entire Northeastern region of the 
Nation is the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program often called 
NECIP. This program already had reduced the time of rail transit 
between Boston and New York and between New York and Washington and 
cities in between, and further improvements will assure even faster 
transit time with greater safety and reliability. This is of 
inestimable importance to millions of Americans--certainly those who 
have occasion to travel through the region, but also to all who live 
there. Rail travel in many cases is faster and more convenient than 
travel by any other mode of transportation. And every passenger carried 
by rail reduces the burden on other transportation modes, particularly 
air transportation, which already is dealing with near saturation in 
many respects: airports that are at or near capacity; an air traffic 
control system that often must delay flights to ensure safety in the 
very congested airspace of this region; et cetera. And rail travel has 
a less harmful impact on the environment and is a more efficient energy 
consumer per passenger mile than almost all other means of 
transportation. This bill continues the progress on NECIP.
  In addition to these matters of national significance, I want to 
thank the chairman, the subcommittee, and its staff for their 
assistance with several key transportation projects of special 
significance to Massachusetts. The legislation includes important 
funding for the New Bedford/Fall River Commuter Rail line, for the 
Boston Urban Ring, and for work pertaining to the Boston Central Artery 
enabling a decision to be made at a later point to link the North and 
South Stations to permit through rail traffic. All of these will make a 
great difference in moving people in the areas they will serve, and 
thereby will affect both the economy and the quality of life in those 
areas.
  I am pleased to support the bill presented by the Appropriations 
Committee, and I compliment the chairman and the subcommittee for 
producing a bill that does so much of what we need to do even while it 
complies with the very stringent funding limit imposed by the 
subcommittee's allocation of the fiscal year 1995 discretionary budget.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I rise to comment on an issue addressed in the report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  In the section of the report dealing with the Federal Transit 
Administration, there is a paragraph addressing the processing of 
transit grants by the Department of Labor. The language contends that 
there are no problems in the 13(c) processing of grants at DOL, and 
that delays in the receipt of transit funds are rare.
  This language, quite frankly, does not adequately reflect the 
experience in my State and, I am sure, many others. The Senate language 
stands in stark contrast to the House report which indicates that 
numerous transit grants have been delayed due to 13(c), and that 
``(t)hese delays frustrate the effectuation of the committee's spending 
priorities and allocation of scarce resources for important transit 
projects.''
  The large backlog of grants has also been recognized by the 
Department of Labor itself which recently identified close to $300 
million in grants being held up by 13(c) issues. In Arkansas, 13(c) 
delays recently threatened the loss of $4 million in funds for the 
Central Arkansas Transit Authority slated for the purchase of new buses 
to increase service to the community and to create jobs.
  One of the fundamental problems in the 13(c) program is the lack of 
timeframes for the negotiation or development of 13(c) protections or 
for certification action by the Department of Labor.
  Would my distinguished colleague agree?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I agree with the Senator from Arkansas. It is simply 
incorrect to say that there are no problems in the 13(c) processing of 
grants at the Department of Labor. In my own State of Kansas, we have 
experienced lengthy delays in the receipt of transit funds.
  Most recently, Johnson County, KS, and the Kansas City Area 
Transportation Authority applied for a grant to fund, among other 
things, the acquisition of 10 to 14 buses. Because of a labor dispute 
on the Missouri side of Kansas City, Johnson County's portion of the 
grant was delayed, even though the dispute was wholly unrelated to 
Johnson County. Although the union involved agreed that the Johnson 
County funds should be released, it was almost a year before the 
Department of Labor finally granted 13(c) approval to release the 
funds.
  This is just one of many examples of delays we have experienced in 
the State of Kansas with the 13(c) process. The current process is not 
working, and our local transit systems simply cannot afford these 
needless and costly delays.
  Mr. BOND. I share the views of my colleague from Arkansas. In the 
State of Missouri, City Utilities of Springfield has suffered 
considerable delays in receiving critical transit funding in the past. 
In fact, the Department of Labor has issued determinations of 
questionable validity which directly conflict with Missouri State law, 
and with the meet-and-confer process established under Missouri 
statutes and court decisions. In addition, the delays in 13(c) 
processing make financial planning, capital investment, and budgeting 
by public transit authorities considerably more difficult and, as the 
House has articulated, also frustrates Congress' spending priorities as 
reflected in DOT appropriations bill being considered today. For the 
Senate report to say that the 13(c) program is working well simply 
ignores these very real and considerable problems.


                              aip funding

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations 
to the managers of this bill for their efforts to allocate scarce 
Federal resources to the wide variety of transportation modes. With the 
burgeoning needs of our Nation's transportation system, coupled with 
very limited funding resources, the Senate appropriators' job is 
difficult indeed. Again, I commend the managers for their leadership.
  I would, however, like to bring to my colleagues attention one 
particular section of the bill that concerns me greatly. That is, the 
funding provison for the Federal Aviation Administration Airport 
Improvement Program. This program is marked to take a drastic cut.
  As ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I know well the 
importance of the Airport Improvement Program, commonly referred to as 
AIP. The AIP program provides grants to fund the capital needs of the 
Nation's commercial airports and general aviation facilities. AIP 
grants for airport development and planning help in maintaining a safe 
and efficient nationwide system of public use airports.
  AIP grants are funded out of the aviation trust fund, a dedicated 
revenue stream generated primarily from the imposition of a 10 percent 
tax on airline tickets. Although the unobligated balance in the 
aviation trust fund sits idle at over $4 billion, funding for the AIP 
program has steadily declined over the past several years.
  Mr. President, estimates of capital construction needs at airports 
range from $7 billion to $10 billion a year over the next 5 years. 
Obviously, substantial improvements are necessary. Yet Congress is 
continually slashing the AIP funding. Is this sound Federal aviation 
policy?
  The highest funding level for AIP was just under $2 billion, which, I 
might add, occurred during a Republican administration. Unfortunately, 
funding for AIP has declined steadily over the past several years. AIP 
has gone from $1.9 billion to $1.8 billion to a level of $1.69 billion 
in 1994. Now, the Senate is proposing to further cut this program--down 
to a level of $1.45 billion. This is nearly one-half billion dollars a 
year below the funding levels of a few years ago.
  I cannot help but note the irony of the Clinton administration 
proclaiming itself to be strongly in support of infrastructure 
investment, while standing silently by as funding for the AIP program 
has been allowed to erode precipitously away in the past 2 years. Such 
an erosion in funding has a dramatic impact on the ability of airports 
to fund needed safety projects at their facilities. Shouldn't our 
aviation safety agenda deserve greater attention?
  Annually, airports receive funds from the AIP program based on the 
number of enplanements at their facilities. For many of the smaller 
airports in the country, this is the only realistic source of Federal 
funds available to them. They are not large enough to qualify for 
letters of intent [LOIs], which commit multiyear funding. They rarely 
rate high enough for FAA priority consideration for discretionary 
funds. As a result, the enplanement funds they receive each year are 
absolutely critical.
  Mr. President, the moneys available under the enplanement formula for 
distribution to small airports would be cut by a staggering 20 percent 
if the proposed $1.45 billion is enacted. If this doesn't immediately 
alarm you, perhaps some examples would illustrate more clearly the 
problem. Consider the impact on some South Dakota airports.
  At the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, enplanement funds would be 
lowered from $1,094,127 to an estimated $908,125--a loss of over 
$186,000 or a 17-percent reduction. At Rapid City Regional Airport, 
funds would decline $873,966 to an estimated $725,391--a loss of over 
$148,000 or 17 percent. At Aberdeen and Pierre, airports which receive 
the minimum level of enplanement funds available, funding would be cut 
from $488,000 this year to $395,000 next year, a loss of $93,000 for 
each of these airports, or a 19-percent reduction. These examples alone 
total over half a million dollars, which is a very sizable amount of 
money to my State's airports.
  In addition to the cuts in enplanement funds, significantly less 
money will be available to general aviation airports through the State 
set-aside. That fund will lose $37 million dollars next year under the 
proposed $1.45 billion level.
  These examples from my State are not unique. Every airport in the 
county will immediately feel the squeeze of such drastic AIP 
reductions. Within the next few weeks, Congress should agree to a 
multiyear AIP reauthorization bill with authorization levels in excess 
of $2 billion each year. I should remind my colleagues that even at the 
$2 billion level, we are far short of fully funding the needs of the 
airport community. However, at the $1.45 billion appropriations level, 
we are not only falling short of our goal, we are shortchanging the 
traveling public. Let us not forget it is the air traveling public who 
are paying into the aviation trust fund, which is supposed to be 
dedicated to funding airport improvements.
  Mr. President, I had considered offering an amendment to increase the 
AIP funding allocation; however, I know my efforts would be a lesson in 
futility. Plus, I do not advocate taking from Peter to pay Paul. 
However, it is my hope the Senate would agree to the level proposed in 
the House-passed version, which is $50 million higher than the Senate 
bill.
  In the future, I urge my colleagues to increase AIP funding up to the 
authorized levels in conformance with the legislation that should be 
enacted soon. We should keep the faith with those who are paying into 
the aviation trust fund. After all, its intended purposes is not for 
budgetary smoke and mirrors.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear the distinguished 
chairman mention his interest in attempting to accommodate those 
transportation projects that were not included in the Senate version of 
this bill but were funded in the House-approved legislation. As the 
Senator from New Jersey knows, I strongly support a provision in the 
House bill providing $10 million for freight rail improvements along 
the Northeast corridor in Rhode Island.
  The House provision is intended to mitigate the adverse impacts of 
the Northeast corridor improvement project in Rhode Island. Although I 
strongly support the Northeast corridor electrification project, I am 
concerned that as currently envisioned it will inhibit Rhode Island's 
economy recovery and limit freight rail service.
  Accordingly to Amtrak's proposed electrification plans, the speed and 
volume of passenger rail traffic in Rhode Island would increase 
dramatically. Unfortunately, this modernization would reduce the 
opportunity for freight rail trips along the Rhode Island corridor. In 
addition, the current electrification design may even preclude the 
introduction of modern triple-level rail cars on Rhode Island's tracks.
  In an effort to address what I consider this unintended consequence 
of electrification, the State of Rhode Island has devised a plan and 
funding mechanism to accommodate the needs of both high-speed passenger 
rail and freight rail service. The solution involves the construction 
of a dedicated third track for freight transportation.
  The key to the plan, of course, is timing. It is imperative that 
funding be provided now so that Amtrak can incorporate the necessary 
design modifications in the overall electrification program. Once the 
electrification moves forward in Rhode Island, there will be no going 
back. The time to address the problem is now.
  So, as the Appropriations Committee completes action today, I want to 
state for the record that I intend to work with the Senator from New 
Jersey, and Senator D'Amato to ensure that funding for this freight 
rail initiative is retained in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I know of no further amendments to 
be offered. I ask for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and the 
third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--9

     Brown
     Faircloth
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kohl
     McCain
     Roth
     Smith
     Wallop
  So the bill (H.R. 4556), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two bodies, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Sasser, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
D'Amato, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Specter, conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we conclude the business on the 
transportation bill before the Senate now. I want to take a minute to 
thank all of my colleagues. You can see from the votes that were cast 
that our colleagues have largely supported the view of the committee. I 
am grateful for that support. The vote seen here today confirms the 
fact that transportation is such an essential part of our structure. It 
was a very tough job because the resources were spare. We continue to 
shrink the pot, but we adapt and learn to work within the funds that we 
have.
  So I want to pay particular thanks to my colleague, Senator D'Amato 
from New York. The fact that we are in the same region makes it easier 
to work on things because what is good for New York and New Jersey is 
often very good for the other States. I say thank you to Senator 
D'Amato. We have worked together for several years on this, and we have 
a degree of comity and unity that gets this difficult job done.
  As you see, we have had the full support of the Senate, with some 
small exceptions. This bill would have been impossible to construct 
without the effort, the creativity and application of our respective 
staffs. They did a superb job. I am talking about the committee staff, 
Pat McCann, Peter Rogoff, Anne Miano, Joyce Rose, Russell Houston, 
Dorothy Pastis, Craig Bone. All of them have worked long hours under 
very difficult conditions. We had to respond so quickly when amendments 
were offered so we could make adjustments to satisfy our colleagues. It 
was done with dispatch and, I must say, with a degree of skill that is 
confirmed by the votes we have seen.
  So I say to all of them that I am deeply in debt for their service 
and that we are going to be ready to go to conference with the House 
knowing what our colleagues expect of us and in making sure that we 
support their needs to the fullest extent possible.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, let me thank the chairman for his kind 
words. Let me also reiterate--and he said it well--as it relates to the 
incredible work of our professional staff on the Democratic side and 
Anne Miano on the Republican side. They have done an extraordinary job. 
These are difficult times. We maximize our utilization of scarce 
resources, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with 
the distinguished chairman in bringing us to this point.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________