[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 
                        1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is with some mixed emotions that I 
bring before the Senate the conference report accompanying H.R. 4556, 
the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  This bill, like many of the appropriations bills passed in recent 
days, is very, very tight. While we were successful in making progress 
and investing scarce dollars in critical areas of our transportation 
infrastructure, we could not do all that we would have liked to do in a 
great many areas.
  I hope that in future years, as we seek to prioritize Federal 
investments within the freeze on discretionary spending, we are going 
to be able to do better by critical transportation programs that do so 
much to promote prosperity and jobs in our country.
  In that context, this conference report focuses on three goals.
  First, it does achieve real spending restraint. For the purposes of 
conference, we faced a discretionary spending ceiling of $13.704 
billion in budget authority and $36.513 billion in outlays. That means 
that our ceiling for conference was below the level we were required to 
work under when passing the Senate bill. As a result, we faced the very 
difficult task of meeting our Nation's needs and the Senate's 
priorities with less money.

  Second, consistent with our limited funds, we made progress toward 
meeting our national transportation needs. The President spelled out 
his priorities in his Budget message. He said that we needed to 
increase investment in some critical areas in order to modernize 
systems and meet our national needs. Specifically, he called for 
increased investment in a number of areas: in the highway obligation 
ceiling; the capital part of mass transit formula grants; the FAA's 
facilities and equipment account; Coast Guard capital expenses; and 
Amtrak capital assistance. This bill makes a down payment on many of 
those investments.
  The bill rejects, however, some of the President's proposals. He 
recommended deep cuts, for example, in transit operating assistance. We 
rejected that recommendation and, within very tight overall funding 
limits, restored more than half of the cut.
  Third, consistent with limited funds and an emphasis on national 
priorities, we protected the interests of the Senate. In terms of 
policy differences, the Senate position prevailed in several key areas.
  For example, one contentious area involved the Coast Guard. The House 
bill contained a sizable cut in Coast Guard operating expenses. We were 
successful in restoring much of that proposed cut. Over the last few 
months, we have seen the Coast Guard operating in overdrive, 
interdicting thousands of Cuban migrants and participating in Operation 
Restore Democracy in Haiti. I believe we all agree that now is not the 
time to impose deep cuts in the Coast Guard's budget.
  In another area, regarding rail, the conferees agreed to many of the 
Senate provisions providing enhanced investment in our Nation's 
passenger rail infrastructure. The House bill made significant cuts 
below the President's request in rail capital investment, and I am 
pleased to report that we were able to reverse their position.
  Finally, the House voted to eliminate funding for the Interstate 
Commerce Commission by more than 40 votes. The conference agreement, 
like the Senate bill, does not propose the elimination of the ICC. 
However, it does contain a very sizable reduction in the agency's 
overall budget and staffing. It will no longer be business as usual at 
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  Beyond these policy disputes, there were also differences between the 
House and Senate about specific projects in the transit and highway 
areas. In general, the Senate recognized fiscal reality and was 
inclined to fund existing projects, while the House moved to start a 
number of new projects without, in my opinion, giving due consideration 
to our ability to pay their total costs. As a result of these different 
approaches, we essentially divided the available funds and allowed each 
body to make decisions within its allotment. That meant there simply 
was not enough money to fully fund all members' individual transit or 
highway projects. We did the best we could with the resources available 
to us. And I want to thank all members for their cooperation and 
understanding through an extremely tight funding process.
  I specifically want to thank the chairman of our committee, the 
President pro tempore, Senator Byrd. I have been disappointed by the 
misrepresentations and mischaracterizations of Senator Byrd's advocacy 
for a critical transportation project in his State. Those of us who 
work closely with this bill appreciate the issue of regional balance 
and the importance of recognizing that individual States differ in the 
amount and kind of infrastructure needed. As he has on the Senate floor 
many times, throughout the transportation conference Senator Byrd 
argued forcefully for the national benefit of infrastructure 
investments. I thank Chairman Byrd for the extraordinary degree of 
cooperation, courtesy and grace he demonstrated during the House-Senate 
conference.
  I also want to say a special thank you to the chairman of the House 
transportation subcommittee, Congressman Bob Carr of Michigan. 
Congressman Carr has been an excellent leader of the subcommittee. His 
knowledge and concern for transportation matters is vast, and I hope he 
will be in a position to share it with us as a Member of the Senate.
  I also thank my distinguished colleague from the other side of the 
Hudson River from New Jersey, Senator D'Amato, who is the ranking 
member of the Transportation Subcommittee for his input and cooperation 
throughout the process. It was not easy for him either. The conference 
agreement before us is truly a bipartisan product. Indeed, it passed 
the House by voice vote without as much as a single objection.
  So, Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield the floor so 
that Senator D'Amato might make any statement that he would like to 
make.
  Mr. D'AMATO. My distinguished colleague from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, I think has an announcement of some consequences that he 
would like to make.
  With the permission of the Chair, I would like to yield the floor to 
Senator Moynihan.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I first express the genuinely 
heartfelt thanks to the two hugely able and effective managers of this 
bill, the Senator from New Jersey and my colleague and my friend, 
Senator D'Amato, from New York.
  This measure contains the $40 million for the rebirth of Pennsylvania 
Station that will bring to $50 million all we can spend next year. 
Construction can start next week, thanks to these two valiant Senators. 
I want to make that remark.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 4556, the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies.
  This conference report details the final agreements of the House and 
the Senate conferees on fiscal year 1995 funding for $14.266 billion in 
transportation programs. These programs include highways, transit, U.S. 
Coast Guard, airport grants, air traffic control personnel and 
equipment, rail freight assistance, Amtrak passenger rail service, as 
well as other programs.
  The report displays funding for covered programs at $482 million 
above the administration's request, and $1.23 billion above current 
levels. Our bill reflects Senate priorities for funding projects that 
promote safety, congestion mitigation, air quality enhancement, and new 
technologies. For example, I am pleased that the transit discretionary 
grant program for buses contains $7.3 million for Nassau County, Long 
Island to advance its national leadership in putting alternative fuels 
buses on the roads. We are striving through this program to encourage 
local transit authorities to acquire buses using cleaner-burning fuels, 
and we will all breathe easier for it.
  The conferees have cut the funding for the Interstate Commerce 
Commission by one-third, to $30.3 million. The Trucking Industry 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1994, signed by the President on August 26, 
1994, has stripped away many of the ICC's useless and obsolete 
functions such as tariff filings, and related regulatory and 
enforcement activities. Congress has made great progress this year in 
dealing with the dinosaur known as the ICC; however, I agree with my 
colleagues on the House side, Mr. Kasich and Mr. Hefley, that more 
needs to be done. In the coming year I expect to closely examine the 
ICC's budget as we debate whether this independent agency is worth the 
money it costs taxpayers, or whether its remaining functions can 
appropriately be performed by other agencies.


                     highway demonstration projects

  The conferees agreed on a total pot of $352 million for 127 highway 
demonstration projects. The final agreement split the pot equally 
between House and Senate projects, giving each body $176 million for 
projects it initiated. The House funded 102 projects; the Senate funded 
25 projects.
  Much controversy surrounded the funding of these highway projects. In 
conference, $60 million was cut from two West Virginia highway 
demonstration projects and then reallocated to House and Senate 
projects. About $52 million was reallocated to 18 Senate projects, 
restoring all but 10 projects to their Senate-passed levels. Funding 
for 1 of these 10 projects, the Pittsburgh Busway was restored under 
transit grant programs. The balance, about $8 million was allocated by 
the House to its highway projects. Senate projects were included based 
on a showing that they were authorized to receive general funds in 
current law, or were ongoing projects that had previously received 
funds. No new starts were included.
  We have heard much about fairness in allocating these highway funds. 
Our final conference agreement addresses those concerns by providing a 
more equitable balance among the Senate projects. However, the House's 
problems in satisfying their project requests go beyond how much money 
one State's projects received in the Senate bill. The House undertook a 
great burden when it funded over 70 new start projects contained in the 
House-passed version of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1994, H.R. 4385. The Senate version of the NHS bill has no such 
demonstration projects. Next year, and in the years to follow, the 
bills will come due to pay for these dozens of new projects.


                transit discretionary grants: new starts

  Thirty-two transit new start projects were funded at $646.67 million 
as proposed by the House, instead of $595 million as contained in the 
Senate bill.
  This program continues to balloon-up in costs as we fund many 
projects that are in preliminary stages, as well as older projects 
whose expensive construction costs are coming due for payment. This 
year, the Senate earmarked funds for a total of 15 projects, including 
only 5 of the same projects as contained in the House bill. This 
process left out important ongoing projects, particularly in the States 
of Texas and Florida, that have strong support in the Senate. The House 
had earmarked a total of 25 projects.
  The allocations for these projects have been controversial, as 
Members seek more funds for projects in their States. This year a new 
process was followed whereby House and Senate projects were considered 
separately in conference. This approach leaves the fate of Senate-
supported projects mainly in the hands of the House conferees, and 
vice-versa. I do not think that this is an approach we should repeat in 
the future. A full picture of new start allocations needs to be before 
all conferees as we make decisions on a program with national impacts. 
Moreover, as transit operating dollars continue to shrink--$710 million 
is contained in this bill--11.5 percent cut from current levels--
serious thought must be given to the projected ridership of these 
projects and who will pay to operate them as we proceed to make 
decisions about new start spending in the future.


                  transit discretionary grants: buses

  The conference agreement provides a total of $353.3 million for 85 
discretionary grants for buses and related facilities. The pot of funds 
left unearmarked and reserved for the Secretary's discretion was 
reduced from $197.5 million in the Senate--and from $51 million in the 
House--to $30 million in the final agreement.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that we were able to come to agreement 
about the many issues contained in this legislation. A specific issue 
of local importance to New York State, is the $40 million contained in 
this bill to redevelop Amtrak's decrepit Penn Station in New York City 
at the nearby James A. Farley Post Office. Penn Station is the Nation's 
busiest train station--500,000 people use it each day. Passengers 
desperately need the safety and operational improvements, as well as 
the enhanced facilities that this redevelopment project will achieve. 
Firm commitments have been made by State and local governments to fund 
their $100 million share of the project, and the Long Island Railroad 
has just completed its $200 million portion of the station.
  In addition, $1.25 million has been made available for an oil spill 
response simulator at the State University of New York Maritime College 
at Fort Schuyler in the Bronx. There is currently no such response 
program in one of the busiest ports of the world--the Port of New York 
and New Jersey. This year, over 25,000 gallons of oil have been spilled 
in over 180 separate spills in this port. This investment in prevention 
will be well spent in protecting our waters, sensitive wetland areas, 
and shorelines.
  Mr. President, this was not easy. Let me say that I think it took an 
extraordinary effort by the chairman, by Senator Lautenberg, and by all 
of our colleagues working together to see to it that limited resources 
were used in the manner and the way that could really make a 
difference.
  I want to commend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership. It was not 
easy. I also want to commend all of the Members for working together to 
make this a reality.
  I support adoption of this conference report, and urge my colleagues 
to support it as well.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished and very able chairman of 
the Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Lautenberg, and the equally 
capable ranking minority member, Mr. D'Amato, deserve great credit for 
their efforts in bringing this Department of Transportation 
appropriation conference report to the Senate. This bill is the product 
of many months of hard work, of thoughtful analysis, and of the many 
hours of testimony that were taken on the 1995 Department of 
Transportation budget. This conference agreement represents a fair and 
balanced approach to our Nation's transportation needs. It recognizes 
the transit needs of those States which have large populations and 
population densities. It also provides for the transportation needs of 
smaller, less populous States whose major transportation systems are 
their highways.
  I compliment the chairman and ranking minority member, as well as 
their excellent staff: Pat McCann, Peter Rogoff, Joyce Rose, Anne 
Miano, and Dorothy Pastis.


                     transportation funding levels

  Mr. President, I have a table which sets forth information which was 
provided to the Appropriations Committee by the Department of 
Transportation relative to the funding levels for selected programs 
that will be provided for fiscal year 1995 to certain States pursuant 
to existing statutory authority. That authority allows obligations to 
be incurred from the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds up to 
the levels set in the 1995 Department of Transportation appropriation 
bill. Also, under ISTEA, States will receive mass transit grants for 
both capital projects and operating costs in the amounts shown in the 
table.
  I hope that this information will be helpful and instructive to those 
who may have the mistaken impression that there is unfairness in the 
distribution of Federal transportation dollars.
  Funding for the District of Columbia is not included on the table, 
but for comparison, I would point out that the 1995 Transportation 
conference agreement contains $200 million for Metro construction, $9.2 
million in interest payments on WMATA's bonds; $24 million for transit 
operating subsidies; and $17.3 million for rail modernization grants.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table that I have 
referred to, entitled ``Fiscal Year 1995 Funding of Selected Department 
of Transportation Programs,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    FISCAL YEAR 1995 FUNDING OF SELECTED DOT PROGRAMS                                                   
                                                                   [In whole dollars]                                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Federal-aid Highways                                                         
                       State                       --------------------------------------------------------------------     Airport          Transit    
                                                       Obl. Limit        1994 MA       ISTEA Demos\1\       Total          grants\2\        formula\3\  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................................    1,341,338,030      189,625,000       51,451,000    1,582,414,030       54,368,042      360,593,297
New York..........................................      845,225,887                0       45,348,000      890,573,887       28,072,738      440,845,878
Texas.............................................      953,452,461      119,393,000       34,798,000    1,107,643,461       48,246,684      125,918,186
Florida...........................................      521,735,792      161,433,000       27,427,000      710,595,792       32,744,685      110,308,020
Pennsylvania......................................      653,853,400       53,342,000      129,477,000      836,672,400       21,280,388      129,844,979
Illinois..........................................      568,422,288                0       24,825,000      593,247,288       21,760,495      176,760,452
Virginia..........................................      293,977,580       77,643,000       20,602,000      392,222,580       13,489,835       41,837,189
West Virginia.....................................      148,457,229                0       48,853,000      197,310,229        4,507,633        5,646,635
All other.........................................   11,833,537,333  ...............  ...............   11,833,537,333    1,225,529,500    1,108,245,364
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total...........................................   17,160,000,000      601,436,000      382,781,000   18,144,217,000    1,450,000,000    2,500,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Represents 26% of estimated available balances of ISTEA demo funds to the above states through FY 1995--actual obligations will likely vary from     
  these estimates.                                                                                                                                      
\2\Assumes current enplanement numbers will be changed as finals become available; includes $140 M entitlement carryover.                               
\3\Distribution will change because new Sec. 15 performance numbers will be used for publication in Federal Register Oct. 1994.                         

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that an 
editorial, the first of a series in the Martinsburg, West Virginia, 
newspaper, The Journal, under date of September 29, 1994, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Journal (Martinsburg, WV), Sept. 29, 1994]

        Byrd's Critics Overlook Truth While Flinging Accusations

       U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., demonstrated in the last two 
     weeks that when all other rational arguments fail to bolster 
     a weak argument, try slander and lies. Naive constituents 
     will love you, big-money contributors will be generous and 
     the Washington Post will lionize you.
       In the last two weeks, Wolf has again taken on U.S. Sen. 
     Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. Wolf, the ranking Republican on the 
     House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, targeted 
     Byrd's request for $140 million to be spent on engineering 
     and construction of Corridor H. Last week, on the floor of 
     the House of Representatives, Wolf created a cleverly 
     constructed argument in which he contended that Byrd, 
     chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was making 
     off with almost all of the federal government's money for 
     highway construction.
       On Sept. 21, he argued that West Virginia, with only 1.7 
     million people, was going to receive $140 million. He said 
     eight states with more than 100 million people were only 
     going to get $10 million. ``That's not fair,'' declared Wolf.
       Here-here, said the Post, in an editorial that curiously 
     ran the next day. In a remarkable quick rewrite of Wolf's 
     speech, the Post not only repeats Wolf's claim that a small 
     state is getting a lot of money, but also prints, almost 
     verbatim, Wolf's contention that the state would receive $133 
     million more than could be used in a four-month time period.
       What Wolf and the Post don't say is that Corridor H is not 
     new. It was proposed by the Appalachian Regional Commission 
     nearly 25 years ago as a development highway. It was intended 
     to complement the interstate highway system. Most of the easy 
     corridors have been built. Most of the remaining projects are 
     in, you guessed it, West Virginia.
       Wolf and the Post also failed to note that the number of 
     accidents in the Corridor H area are above the statewide 
     average, and the state as a whole ranked second in the 
     country in traffic deaths for each 10,000 motor vehicles 
     registered. That's because most of the roads in the state 
     were built in the 1930s and reflect what Byrd calls ``a 
     happenstance response to topography rather than strategic 
     planning.''
       The Post and Wolf conveniently fail to mention that it 
     isn't cheap to build highways in Appalachia. The costs of 
     completing most Appalachian system corridors is about $10.9 
     million per mile. But because of the extremely difficult and 
     environmentally sensitive terrain, Corridor H will probably 
     cost more than $18 million per mile to build.
       The Post and Wolf also failed to note that West Virginia 
     will receive little money for airports and mass transit 
     relative to states that have sophisticated systems and need 
     the big bucks.
       And guess who is going to pocket lots of mega bucks for 
     airports and mass transit?
       The federal government will have spent $9 billion on 
     Washington D.C.'s 103-mile Metro system when it is completed. 
     The bill that Wolf and the Post fume about provides a $200 
     million subsidy--no other word fits--for the operation of 
     the Metro next year. That doesn't include the $27 million 
     subsidy for the Washington D.C. bus system.
       Wolf says he is protecting the interests of the people in 
     Shenandoah County, Va., who don't want Corridor H spoiling 
     their bucolic existence. Yet Wolf and his political buddy, 
     Virginia Gov. George Allen, are demanding the federal 
     government cough up big bucks for a new interchange on 
     Interstate 66 that will serve the Walt Disney Co. theme park, 
     ``America.'' There are a lot of folks in that area who don't 
     want the theme park or the new interchange, let alone a $166 
     million subsidy, but they must not count to Wolf--they don't 
     live in Wolf's district.
       Wolf is using the opposition to Corridor H in Shenandoah 
     County as a red herring to disguise his real fear--the loss 
     of more federal ``back offices'' to West Virginia and other 
     states. He spoke to that concern when he recently announced 
     he was opposed to the upgrade of W. Va. 9. In this computer 
     age, it doesn't really matter where an office building full 
     of bureaucrats is located. All that counts is the building be 
     linked to a reasonably sophisticated and reliable telephone 
     system. Thanks to Bell Atlantic, West Virginia has one of the 
     most sophisticated telecommunications systems in the world. 
     It also costs a whole lot less to do business in West 
     Virginia than it does--you guessed--in Northern Virginia. The 
     cost of labor, construction and housing is less. Taxes also 
     are less.
       Every time Byrd makes what is now a routine announcement 
     about another federal agency moving to the Mountain State, a 
     shiver must go up and down the spines of all of northern 
     Virginia's movers and shakers. Those glad tidings mean the 
     federal government will spend less in and around Washington 
     D.C. That means fewer people who will buy houses or go to 
     shopping centers in northern Virginia. That also means small 
     but tangible numbers of people won't be patronizing 
     businesses,that advertise in the Post. It won't take long for 
     those businesses to rethink their advertising strategies.
       Wolf and the Post think they have won this round. The 
     transportation budget only allocates $40 million for Corridor 
     H this year. Wolf can claim he humbled the all-powerful Byrd, 
     the Post editors can crow how they struck a mighty blow 
     against the evils of pork barrel politics.
       But not everybody who works within the Beltway is quite so 
     myopic. One congressional staffer who works for the House 
     Appropriations Committee said Wolf's and the Post's criticism 
     of Byrd only enhances Byrd's reputation in West Virginia. It 
     also only causes nothing but fury for most West Virginia 
     Republicans. The West Virginia's eastern region is viewed as 
     fertile ground for them. Wolf's diatribes only undercuts 
     their efforts.
       Next year is another session of Congress and, if Byrd wins 
     re-election, we shall see who has the last laugh.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement accompanying H.R. 4556, the Transportation and related 
agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  The pending conference agreement provides a total of $14.3 billion in 
new budget authority and $12.4 billion in new outlays to fund the 
operations of the Department of Transportation agencies for the 
upcoming fiscal year. These agencies include the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Transit 
Administration, the Coast Guard, Amtrak, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the final bill totals $14.3 billion in 
budget authority and $37.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1995.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee for the hard work they have done on this important bill.
  They have brought back to the Senate a final bill that is within the 
subcommittee's 602(b) budget allocation by $10 million in budget 
authority and less than $500,000 in outlays.
  I thank the distinguished subcommittee leadership for the 
consideration and support they gave to programs important to my home 
State of New Mexico, including the completion of three ongoing 
projects. I urge the adoption of the conference agreement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator suggests the absence of a quorum. 
The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   The I-265 Extension Bridge Funding

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I wonder if the manager of the bill, my good 
friend from New Jersey, will yield to discuss the I-265 funding in the 
conference report?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to discuss this issue with the 
senior Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, Senator McConnell, Senator Lugar, 
Congressman Hamilton, and Congressman Mazzoli have all supported the 
need for a new bridge linking southern Indiana with the Louisville, 
Kentucky region. We are pleased the House and Senate agreed in this 
conference report to begin funding this project by including $500,000 
for the I-265 extension.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FORD. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. First, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for including this project in the bill. Would my friend agree 
that there is a consensus on a need for a new bridge in the area and 
that local officials from both States have yet to agree on the exact 
location of the bridge?
  Mr. FORD. That is my understanding.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, will my good friend, the senior Senator 
from Kentucky, yield for a question?
  Mr. FORD. I would be happy to yield to my good friend, the Senator 
from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. As I understand the problem my State of Indiana and the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky agree there is a need for a bridge in the area 
of Clark County, Indiana, Louisville, Kentucky Area, and Jefferson 
County, Kentucky area, and that our States have not yet reached an 
agreement on the location.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Jersey given the fact that 
the two States have not yet reached an agreement it is therefore my 
understanding that the funding in the conference report is not site-
specific?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would say to my friend, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky, and to my friends, the senior Senator from Indiana and 
Senator McConnell, that the conference committee by designating the 
project I-265 extension does not mean that we have agreed to a site-
specific location in the greater metropolitan area, but rather, the 
States of Kentucky and Indiana must come to an agreement on the 
specific location for the bridge.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Would the Senator from Kentucky yield?
  Mr. FORD. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to point out that it is my 
understanding as well, that the I-265 project funds are to be used only 
at the location that is decided upon by the States of Kentucky and 
Indiana.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
remarks.


               the 5-percent bonus obligation limitation

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the chairman's 
intent with regard to the absence of a provision in this conference 
report. Is it the chairman's intent that, as in last year's 
transportation appropriations bill, lack of appropriations bill 
language affirming or restating the 5-percent bonus obligation 
limitation program should not be interpreted by the Department of 
Transportation to mean that the program should not be available to 
States in fiscal year 1995? That in fact, the reference to this program 
in section 1002(f) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act [ISTEA] is sufficient reference to continue the program in fiscal 
year 1995?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is correct. It is not my intention to 
make the 5-percent bonus obligation limitation program unavailable to 
States that meet the appropriate requirements in fiscal year 1995. The 
authorization statute in the ISTEA is sufficient reference to continue 
the program in fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Lautenberg for 
his help this year and for crafting an excellent and equitable 1995 
Transportation appropriation bill.
  Mr. President, the statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report includes language that modifies language passed by the Senate 
concerning the South/North rail line in Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. 
Would my colleague please explain the modification made by the 
conferees?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senate language directed that funds made 
available to Portland in interstate transfer monies be used for 
preliminary engineering and environmental impact studies for the South/
North corridor project. The conferees have removed the requirement that 
these funds be used for this purpose creating flexibility for the 
Portland metropolitan area to use these formula funds on the South/
North corridor or any other eligible project.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank my colleague for that clarification.


                            ministerial road

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Lautenberg, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator 
D'Amato, of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies of 
the Appropriations Committee for including funds in the conference 
agreement for H.R. 4556 that I requested for Ministerial Road in Rhode 
Island. Amendment No. 157 in the conference report, House Report 103-
752, includes the Senate language contained in section 324 of the 
Senate bill. Section 324 as included in amendment No. 157 provides 
$100,000 of existing funds 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 amendment No. 157 in the conference agreement?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. The intent 
of the conference agreement 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.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote 
occur at 11:45 this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 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.

                          ____________________