[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      CLARIFYING CONCERN FOR CONFERENCE REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the transportation appropriations conference 
report was signed by the President and the new fiscal year is now 
underway. During the conference of the transportation bill there were 
several issues that were left somewhat unclear and I am taking this 
opportunity to clarify my concerns regarding two issues.
  There is a small but very important provision in the conference 
report regarding section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. This 
language attempts to down play and even ignore the delays experienced 
in 13(c) processing by the Department of Labor. Put simply, this 
language ignores the fact that significant delays have occurred and 
continue to occur in obtaining 13(c) certification--delays that have 
caused numerous transit properties to wait substantial periods of time 
to receive capital and operating assistance for transit services. Even 
the Department of Labor itself recognized earlier this year that a 
problem existed, finding that over 57 grants amounting to roughly $300 
million were held up due to 13(c) processing.
  The concern voiced by the original House Report (H. Report 103-543) 
that an identifiable problem existed was echoed in the Senate on a 
bipartisan basis. At the time the fiscal year 1995 DOT appropriations 
bill was considered by the Senate, several Senators expressed 
disagreement with the notion contained in the Senate Report (S. Report 
103-310), that the 13(c) program was not broken. Senator Bumpers stated 
that:

       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.'' One of the fundamental problems in the 13(c) 
     program is the lack of time frames for the negotiation or 
     development of 13(c) protections or for certification action 
     by the Department of Labor.

  Similarly, Senator Kassebaum stated that:

       [T]he current process is not working and our local transit 
     system cannot afford these needless and costly delays.

  Senator Bond also commented that not only were considerable delays 
experienced in receiving transit funding, but the Department of Labor 
has issued determinations of questionable validity which directly 
conflict with State law and the process initiated for establishing 
terms and conditions of employment. Senator Bond concluded by stating 
that:

       For the Senate report to say that the 13(c) program is 
     working well simply ignores these very real and considerable 
     problems.

  I believe that these statements verify that it is undisputed that 
important transit projects have failed to be promptly obligated because 
of delays in the Department of Labor's section 13(c) case processing. 
There is a clear need for the Department of Labor to develop a more 
time sensitive process for certification of transit projects by 
establishing time frames for the negotiation and mediation process, and 
by making its own determinations on contested issues as promptly as 
possible, and in accordance with clearly articulated legal standards. 
Further, to avoid unnecessary delays in the issuance of section 13(c) 
certifications, the obligation for negotiating new 13(c) protections 
should only be triggered by a showing of potential employee harm tied 
to the specific Federal project involved. With such changes to the 
13(c) processing of grants, the Congress spending priorities can be 
fully effectuated and important transit projects can be promptly 
undertaken.

  Mr. Speaker, my second concern has to do with a commitment that the 
Federal Aviation Administration has made with regards to the Dallas-
Fort Worth International Airport.
  First and foremost, I want to encourage the FAA to continue to 
obligate federal funds in a manner that will provide the greatest 
benefit to the national air transportation system. In this regard, the 
FAA should honor its commitment to allocate $75 million over a 3-year 
period to complete the east-side runway now under construction at the 
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. This project will 
substantially increase the capacity of the U.S. air transportation 
system, thereby benefiting the system as a whole.
  The funding plan for the new runway was eventually finalized after 
numerous internal discussions and lengthy negotiations with the 
airport's tenant airlines. The funding program was based on certain 
assumptions. One of these assumptions was the use of an $82.7 million 
amended letter of intent that was issued by the FAA in 1989. A second 
source of funds is the $75 million in joint revenue bonds that were 
sold in November 1993. The airport was also assuming funds from 
passenger facility charges.
  The final source of funds was contingent upon the FAA's assurance to 
commit an additional $75 million in the form of a letter of intent. 
Through efforts of several of my colleagues, it became apparent that 
the FAA had agreed to commit the additional $75 million in Federal 
funds to DFW's east-side project. At that time, it was understood that 
the $75 million would be paid to the airport from the AIP discretionary 
fund over 3 years. Specifically, in fiscal year 1994 the airport would 
receive $12.5 million; in fiscal year 1995, $25 million; and in fiscal 
year 1996, $37.5 million.
  Since this announcement, the FAA indicated that some of the funding 
might be allocated over additional years. This is not necessarily good 
news. I feel that it is important for the FAA to clarify exactly what 
the payment schedule in the distribution of these funds will be.
  Thank you Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________