[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12037-S12064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to the consideration of H.R. 2002, the transportation 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. 

[[Page S12038]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, 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. 2002

       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, 1996, 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, 
     [$55,011,500] $56,500,000, of which not to exceed [$40,000] 
     $60,000 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, there may be credited to this 
     appropriation up to $1,000,000 in funds received in user fees 
     established to support the electronic tariff filing system: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     Act or otherwise made available may be used to maintain 
     [duplicate physical copies] custody of airline tariffs that 
     are already available for public and departmental access at 
     no cost; to secure them against detection, alteration, or 
     tampering; [or open them] and open to inspection by the 
     Department.
                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     [$6,554,000] $12,083,000, and in addition, $809,000, to be 
     derived from ``Federal-aid Highways'' subject to the 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses''.
           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, and development 
     activities, to remain available until expended, [$3,309,000] 
     $9,710,000.
                          Working Capital Fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Department of Transportation Working Capital Fund 
     associated with the provision of services to entities within 
     the Department of Transportation, not to exceed 
     [$102,231,000] $104,364,000 shall be paid, in accordance with 
     law, from appropriations made available to 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 subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as is payable by the Department of Transportation, 
     [$15,000,000] $26,738,536, 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 [$15,000,000] $26,738,536 for the Payments to Air 
     Carriers program in fiscal year 1996: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be used by the Secretary 
     of Transportation to make payment of compensation under 
     subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, 
     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] seventy-five 
     highway miles from the nearest large or medium or small 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, [$23,600,000] 
     $11,861,464 in fiscal year 1996 is hereby rescinded[: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, effective January 1, 1996 no point in the 48 
     contiguous States and Hawaii eligible for compensated 
     transportation in fiscal year 1996 under subchapter II of 
     chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, including 49 
     U.S.C. 41734(d), shall receive such transportation unless a 
     State, local government, or other non-Federal entity agrees 
     to pay at least fifty percent of the cost of providing such 
     transportation, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Transportation: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     require the entity or entities agreeing to pay such amounts 
     to make advance payments or provide other security to ensure 
     that timely payments are made: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, points covered by 
     the cost-sharing provisions under this head for which no 
     State, local government, or non-Federal entity agrees to pay 
     at least fifty percent of the cost of providing such 
     transportation shall receive a reduced level of service in 
     fiscal year 1996, to be determined by the Secretary as 
     follows: The Secretary shall subtract from the funds made 
     available in this Act so much as is needed to provide 
     compensation to all eligible points for which a State, local 
     government, or other non-Federal entity agrees to pay at 
     least fifty percent of the cost of providing such 
     transportation, and, with remaining funds, allocate to each 
     other point an amount reduced by the ratio of the remainder 
     calculated above to all funds made available in this Act: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall allocate any funds 
     that become unallocated as the year progresses to those 
     points for which a State, local government, or other non-
     Federal entity does not agree to pay at least fifty percent 
     of the cost of such transportation].
                        Payments to Air Carriers


                              (rescission)

       Of the budgetary resources remaining available under this 
     heading, $6,786,971 are rescinded.
                            Rental Payments

       For necessary expenses for rental of headquarters and field 
     space not to exceed 8,580,000 square feet and for related 
     services assessed by the General Services Administration, 
     [$130,803,000] $139,689,000: Provided, That of this amount, 
     $1,897,000 shall be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, 
     $41,441,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, $836,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline 
     Safety Fund, and $169,000 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, [$17,099,000] $17,685,000, 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.
                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of the Minority Business Resource 
     Center outreach activities, [$2,900,000] $2,100,000, of which 
     [$2,642,000] $1,842,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.
                 Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset

       For necessary expenses, of the Office of the Secretary, not 
     otherwise provided for, $4,705,000, to transfer residual rail 
     and motor carriers functions from the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission to the Department of Transportation.
                              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 five 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; [$2,565,607,000] $2,286,000,000, 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 of the funds 
     provided for operating expenses for fiscal year 1996, in this 
     or any other Act, not less than $314,200,000 shall be 
     available for drug enforcement activities].
              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, [$375,175,000] $366,800,000, of which 
     $32,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill 

[[Page S12039]]
     Liability Trust Fund; of which [$191,200,000] $178,000,000 shall be 
     available to acquire, repair, renovate or improve vessels, 
     small boats and related equipment, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000; [$16,500,000] $14,500,000 shall be 
     available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 1998; 
     [$42,200,000] $47,600,000 shall be available for other 
     equipment, to remain available until September 30, 1998; 
     [$82,275,000] $80,200,000 shall be available for shore 
     facilities and aids to navigation facilities, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1998; and [$43,000,000] 
     $46,500,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996: Provided, That funds received from the 
     sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft shall be credited to 
     this appropriation for the purpose of acquiring new aircraft 
     and increasing aviation capacity[: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may transfer funds between projects under this 
     head, not to exceed $50,000,000 in total for the fiscal year, 
     thirty days after notification to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations, solely for the purpose of 
     providing funds for facility renovation, construction, exit 
     costs, and other implementation costs associated with Coast 
     Guard streamlining plans]: Provided further, That the 
     Commandant shall dispose of surplus real property by sale or 
     lease and the proceeds of such sale or lease shall be 
     credited to this appropriation.
                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, $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
                        Port Safety Development

       For necessary expenses for debt retirement of the Port of 
     Portland, Oregon, $15,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.
                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, [$16,000,000] $2,000,000, 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), $582,022,000.
                            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; [$61,859,000] 
     $62,000,000.
              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     [$18,500,000] $20,000,000, 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, 
     $20,000,000, to be derived from the Boat Safety Account and 
     to remain available until expended.
                             Emergency Fund


                (limitation on permanent appropriation)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       Except as provided in emergency supplemental appropriations 
     provided in other appropriations Acts for fiscal year 1996, 
     not more than $3,000,000 shall be obligated or expended in 
     fiscal year 1996 pursuant to section 6002(b) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 to carry out the provisions of section 
     1012(a)(4) of that Act.
                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations
                     (including transfer of funds)
       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities 
     and the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, and carrying out the provisions of subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 of title 49, U.S. Code, 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, [$4,600,000,000] $4,550,000,000, of which 
     [$1,871,500,000] $1,865,000,000 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] agency services, including 
     receipts for 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 and in addition $10,000,000, 
     to be credited to this appropriation from fees established 
     and collected to cover the cost of safety and security 
     regulation under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration: Provided further, That funds may be used to 
     enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard 
     setting organization to assist in the development of aviation 
     safety standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this or any subsequent 
     Act may be used to pay premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5546a for 
     any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1995; except 
     that, (i) for fiscal year 1996, such premium pay may be paid 
     at 50 percent of the rate specified in 5 U.S.C. 5546a; and 
     (ii) for fiscal year 1997, such premium pay may be paid at 25 
     percent of the rate specified in 5 U.S.C. 5546a: Provided 
     further, That the unexpended balances of the appropriation 
     ``Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Operations and 
     Research'' shall be transferred to and merged with this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund may be used to 
     support the operations and activities of the Associate 
     Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
                        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 under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, U.S. Code, 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, [$2,000,000,000] $1,890,377,000, of which 
     [$1,784,000,000] $1,674,377,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1998, [and] of which $216,000,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1996, and of which $10,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, is for funding 
     noncompetitive cooperative agreements with air carriers to 
     assist them in acquiring and installing the following 
     advanced security equipment: (1) hardened unit load devices, 
     (2) explosive detection systems certified by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, and (3) computer-aided screener 
     training and proficiency systems, in order to evaluate such 
     equipment's operational feasibility and effectiveness in 
     improving civil aviation security): 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.
                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances under this heading, [$60,000,000] 
     $70,000,000 are rescinded.
                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, U.S.C., including 
     construction of experimental facilities and acquisition of 
     necessary sites by lease or grant, [$143,000,000] 
     $215,886,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 1998: 
     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)
            (including rescission of contract authorization)
       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and for noise 
     compatibility planning and programs as authorized under 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 
     of title 49, U.S. Code, 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 

[[Page S12040]]
     obligations for which are in excess of [$1,600,000,000] $1,250,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1996 for grants-in-aid for airport planning 
     and development, and noise compatibility planning and 
     programs, notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title 49, U.S. 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be available for the planning and execution of programs 
     the obligations for which are in excess of $20,000,000 for 
     the ``Military Airports Program'' and $50,000,000 for the 
     ``Reliever Airports Program'': Provided further, That of the 
     available contract authority balances under this account, 
     $5,000,000 are rescinded.
                   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 49 U.S.C. 44307, 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 chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     activities under this head the obligations for which are in 
     excess of $1,600,000 during fiscal year 1996.
                     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 [$495,381,000] 
     $548,434,000 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 [$190,667,000] $248,909,000 of 
     the amount provided herein shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1998.
                     Highway-Related Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of title 23, United States Code, section 402 
     administered by the Federal Highway Administration, to remain 
     available until expended, [$10,000,000] $13,000,000, to be 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $100,000 of the amount made available 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] 
     $13,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for ``Highway-Related Safety 
     Grants''.
                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of [$18,000,000,000] $17,000,000,000 for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     for fiscal year 1996.
                          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, $19,200,000,000 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)

       None of the funds under this head are available for 
     obligations for right-of-way acquisition during fiscal year 
     1996.
                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 31102, $68,000,000, 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 [$79,150,000] $75,000,000 for ``Motor 
     Carrier Safety Grants''.
                    Surface Transportation Projects

       For up to 80 percent, or as specified in authorizing 
     legislation, 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, $39,500,000, 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 
     part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, [$73,316,570] 
     $71,261,000, of which [$37,825,850] $36,770,676 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1998[: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to 
     add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations any requirement pertaining to a grading standard 
     that is different from the three grading standards 
     (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) already in 
     effect].
                        Operations and Research


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 23 
     U.S.C. 403 and section 2006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, [$52,011,930] 
     $50,344,000, of which [$32,770,670] $31,716,720 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1998.
                        Operations and Research


                             (rescissions)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-331, Public Law 102-388, and Public Law 101-516, 
     $4,547,185 are rescinded from the national advanced driving 
     simulator project.
                     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, Chapter 303 
     of title 49, United States Code, and section 209 of Public 
     Law 95-599, as amended, to remain available until expended, 
     [$153,400,000] $155,100,000, 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 1996, are in excess of 
     [$153,400,000] $155,100,000 for programs authorized under 23 
     U.S.C. 402 and 410, as amended, of which [$126,000,000] 
     $128,000,000 shall be for ``State and community highway 
     safety grants'', [$2,400,000] $2,100,000 shall be for the 
     ``National Driver Register'' [(subject to passage hereafter 
     by the House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, 
     and only in amounts provided therein)] subject to 
     authorization, 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 none of these 
     funds shall be used to purchase automobiles or motorcycles 
     for state, local, or private usage: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed [$5,153,000] $5,211,000 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 ``Alcohol-impaired driving counter-
     measures programs'' [may] shall be available for technical 
     assistance to the States: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed [$890,000] $777,000 of the funds made available for 
     the ``National Driver Register'' may be available for 
     administrative expenses.
                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, [$14,000,000] 
     $14,018,000, of which $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 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.
                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, [$49,940,660] $49,105,000, of 
     which $2,687,000 shall remain available until expended.
                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, [$21,000,000] $25,775,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

[[Page S12041]]


                 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 49 U.S.C. 24909, [$100,000,000] 
     $130,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998.
            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 1996.
           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 
     [technology development and demonstrations, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended] 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, 
     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, 
     $5,000,000, 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 $5,000,000.
                     Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the Alaska Railroad, $10,000,000 shall be for capital 
     rehabilitation and improvements benefiting its passenger 
     operations.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project

       For grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 
     $25,000,000, 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.
                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $2,000,000 to be matched by the 
     State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar for dollar 
     basis and to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     as a condition of accepting such funds, the Providence and 
     Worcester (P&W) Railroad shall enter into an agreement with 
     the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, on a dollar for dollar basis, up to the first 
     $7,000,000 in damages resulting from the legal action 
     initiated by the P&W Railroad under its existing contracts 
     with Amtrak relating to the provision of vertical clearances 
     between Davisville and Central Falls in excess of those 
     required for present freight operations.
         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104, [$628,000,000] $605,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which [$336,000,000] 
     $305,000,000 shall be available for operating losses and for 
     mandatory passenger rail service payments, [$62,000,000] 
     $100,000,000 shall be for transition costs incurred by the 
     Corporation, and [$230,000,000] $200,000,000 shall be for 
     capital improvements: Provided, That none of the funds under 
     this head shall be made available until significant reforms 
     (including labor reforms) in authorizing legislation are 
     enacted to restructure the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation: Provided further, That funding under this head 
     for capital improvements shall not be made available before 
     July 1, 1996: Provided further, 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.
                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, [$39,260,000] $42,000,000.
                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 
     5310(a)(2), 5311, and 5336, to remain available until 
     expended, [$890,000,000] $985,000,000: Provided, That no more 
     than [$2,000,000,000] $2,105,850,000 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 $400,000,000 may be used for operating assistance 
     under 49 U.S.C. 5336(d): Provided further, That the 
     limitation on operating assistance provided under this 
     heading shall, for urbanized areas of less than 200,000 in 
     population, be no less than eighty percent of the amount of 
     operating assistance such areas are eligible to receive under 
     Public Law 103-331: Provided further, That before 
     apportionment of funds under this heading, $29,325,031 shall 
     be apportioned to areas of 200,000 or greater in population.
                   University Transportation Centers

       For necessary expenses for university transportation 
     centers as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5317(b), to remain 
     available until expended, $6,000,000.
                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses for transit planning and research as 
     authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5311, 5313, 5314, and 5315, to 
     remain available until expended, [$82,250,000 of which 
     $39,436,250 shall be for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5303, 
     $4,381,250 for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2), 
     $8,051,250 for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5313(b), 
     $19,480,000 for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5314, $8,051,251 
     for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5313(a), and $2,850,000 for 
     activities under 49 U.S.C. 5315] $90,000,000.
                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(a), $1,120,850,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That [$1,110,000,000] $1,120,850,000 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 $1,665,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for 
     grants under the contract authority in 49 U.S.C. 5338(b): 
     Provided, That there shall be available for fixed guideway 
     modernization, $666,000,000; there shall be available for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities, $333,000,000; and[ there shall be available for 
     new fixed guideway systems, $666,000,000, to be available as 
     follows], notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, $22,840,000 
     made available under Public Law 102-388 under ``Federal 
     Transit Administration, Discretionary Grants'' for projects 
     specified in that Act or identified in reports accompanying 
     that Act, not obligated by September 30, 1995, shall be made 
     available for new fixed guideway systems together with the 
     $666,000,000 made available for new fixed guideway systems 
     under this Act, to be available as follows:
       $42,410,000 for the Atlanta-North Springs project;
       [$17,500,000] $22,620,000 for the South Boston Piers (MOS-
     2) project;
       $6,500,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       $2,000,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky 
     rail line project (subject to passage hereafter by the House 
     of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in 
     amounts provided therein);
       $16,941,000 for the Dallas South Oak Cliff LRT project;
       [$2,500,000] $3,500,000 for the DART North Central light 
     rail extension project [(subject to passage hereafter by the 
     House of a bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and only 
     in amounts provided therein)];
       [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN 
     project [(subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein)];
       $10,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
     project [(subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein)];
       $22,630,000 for the Houston Regional Bus project;
       $12,500,000 for the Jacksonville ASE extension project;
       [$125,000,000] $45,000,000 for the Los Angeles Metro Rail 
     (MOS-3);
       [$10,000,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego commuter rail 
     project;

[[Page S12042]]

       [$10,000,000] $15,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail 
     project;
       [$3,000,000] $22,630,000 for the Maryland Central Corridor 
     LRT project;
       $2,000,000 for the Miami-North 27th Avenue project 
     [(subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein)];
       $2,500,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail Plan 
     (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       [$75,000,000] $85,500,000 for the New Jersey Urban Core-
     Secaucus project;
       [$10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor 
     project] [(subject to passage hereafter by the House of a 
     bill authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       [$114,989,000] $160,000,000 for the New York Queens 
     Connection project;
       $5,000,000 for the Orange County Transitway project 
     (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       $22,630,000 for the Pittsburgh Airport Phase 1 project;
       [$85,500,000] $130,140,000 for the Portland Westside LRT 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Sacramento LRT extension project;
       [$10,000,000] $13,000,000 for the St. Louis Metro Link LRT 
     project;
       [$5,000,000] $14,519,000 for the Salt Lake City light rail 
     project[: Provided, That such funding may be available only 
     for related high-occupancy vehicle lane and intermodal 
     corridor design costs];
       [$10,000,000] $22,620,000 for the San Francisco BART 
     [extension to the San Francisco airport] extension/tasman 
     corridor project;
       $15,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren Urbano 
     project (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       [$1,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project 
     (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein);
       $5,000,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New 
     York (subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein); and
       $14,400,000 for the Wisconsin central commuter project 
     [(subject to passage hereafter by the House of a bill 
     authorizing appropriations therefor, and only in amounts 
     provided therein)];
       $11,300,000 for the Burlington-Charlotte, Vermont commuter 
     rail project; and
       $5,000,000 for the Chicago central area circulator.
                       Mass Transit Capital Fund


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(b) administered by the Federal Transit 
     Administration, [$2,000,000,000] $1,700,000,000 to be derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until 
     expended.
             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] $170,000,000, 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: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds made available to the Saint Lawrence Seaway 
     Development Corporation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund may be obligated for fiscal year 1996, if the Saint 
     Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation expends or 
     obligates funds from the financial reserve fund of the 
     Corporation for the design, development, or procurement of 
     a global position system vessel traffic service system 
     during that fiscal year: Provided further, That no funds 
     made available to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     pursuant to this Act may be used by the Corporation during 
     fiscal year 1996 for those purposes.
                       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, [$10,190,500] $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, [$26,030,000] 
     $24,281,000, of which $574,000 shall be derived from the 
     Pipeline Safety Fund, and of which $7,606,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1998: Provided, That $2,322,000 
     shall be transferred to the Bureau of Transportation 
     Statistics for the expenses necessary to conduct activities 
     related to Airline Statistics, and of which $272,000 shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That up to 
     $1,000,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting 
     receipts: Provided further, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training, for reports publication 
     and dissemination.
                            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 49 U.S.C. 60107 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, [$29,941,000] $32,973,000, of 
     which $2,698,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1998; and of which [$27,243,000] $30,275,000 
     shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, of which 
     $19,423,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1998: 
     Provided, That from amounts made available herein from the 
     Pipeline Safety Fund, not to exceed [$1,000,000] $1,500,000 
     shall be available for grants to States for the development 
     and establishment of one-call notification systems.
                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $400,000 to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1998: Provided, That 
     not more than [$8,890,000] $9,200,000 shall be made available 
     for obligation in fiscal year 1996 from amounts made 
     available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, 
     That no such funds shall be made available for obligation by 
     individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or 
     his designees.
                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, [$40,238,000] $39,891,200.
                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

       For expenses necessary to conduct activities related to 
     airline statistics, $2,200,000, of which $272,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.
                                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, 
     [$3,656,000] $3,500,000: 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), 
     [$38,774,000] $37,500,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 may 
     be used for official reception and representation expenses.
                             Emergency Fund

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board for accident investigations, 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), [$160,802] $360,802 to remain available 
     until expended.
                     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), $13,379,000, of which $4,984,000 shall be for 
     severance and closing costs: Provided, That of the fees 
     collected in fiscal year 1996 by the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701, one-twelfth of 
     $8,300,000 of those fees collected shall be made available 
     for each month the Commission remains in existence during 
     fiscal year 1996.

[[Page S12043]]


                   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, 
     $50,741,000, to be derived from the Panama Canal Revolving 
     Fund: Provided, That funds available to the Panama Canal 
     Commission shall be available for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 38 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.
                               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)] title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 
     7701, et. seq., 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 an 
     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. 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: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       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 1996 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, 1995, 
     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 
     12 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;
       (2) after August 1, 1996, 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, and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240; and
       (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, and 49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317, and 5338: 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.
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1995, 
     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 $277,431,840.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1996, 
     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 1996 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, 1996, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1996 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. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation under the discretionary grants 
     program.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 314. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 315. 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. 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 (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA 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 FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract 

[[Page S12044]]
     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. 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, 1998, shall be made available for other 
     projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for 
     expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the 
     most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
       Sec. 323. 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. 324. 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. 325. 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. 326. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 335 technical staff years under the 
     federally-funded research and  development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     1996.
       Sec. 327. Funds provided in this Act for the Department of 
     Transportation working capital fund (WCF) shall be reduced by 
     [$10,000,000] $5,000,000, which limits fiscal year 1996 WCF 
     obligational authority for elements of the Department of 
     Transportation funded in this Act to no more than 
     [$92,231,000] $99,364,000: 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 in each account for the 
     working capital fund.
       Sec. 328. 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 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 329. (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. 330. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901, et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 331. 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.
       Sec. 332. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth 
     runway at the new Denver International Airport, Denver, 
     Colorado: Provided, That this provision shall not apply in 
     any case where the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration determines, in writing, that safety conditions 
     warrant obligation of such funds.
       Sec. 333. (a) Section 5302(a)(1) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), ``that extends the economic life 
     of the bus for at least 5 years''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), ``that extends the economic life 
     of the bus for at least 8 years''.
       (b) The amendments made by this section shall not take 
     effect before March 31, 1996.
       Sec. 334. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, may be credited to the 
     Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing 
     the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such funds shall 
     not be subject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction.
       Sec. 335. Of the budgetary resources provided to the 
     Department of Transportation [(excluding the Maritime 
     Administration)] during fiscal year 1996, $25,000,000 are 
     permanently canceled: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall reduce the existing field office 
     structure, and to the extent practicable [collocate] 
     consolidate the Department's [surface transportation field 
     offices] administrative activities: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary may for the purpose of consolidation of offices 
     and facilities other than those at Headquarters, after 
     notification to and approval of the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations, transfer the funds made 
     available by this Act for civilian and military personnel 
     compensation and benefits and other administrative expenses 
     to other appropriations made available to the Department of 
     Transportation as the Secretary may designate, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same time period as the appropriations of funds to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That no appropriation shall be 
     increased or decreased by more than ten per centum by all 
     such transfers: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 5 
     U.S.C. 905(b), the President may prepare and transmit to 
     Congress not later than the date for transmittal to Congress 
     of the Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1997, a reorganization 
     plan pursuant to chapter 9 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for the reorganization of the surface transportation 
     activities of the Department of Transportation and the 
     relationship of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation to the Department.
       Sec. 336. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated [for any office of the Office of 
     the Secretary] in this Act to ``Rental payments'' for any 
     expense authorized by that appropriation in excess of the 
     amounts provided in this Act: Provided, That prior to any 
     such transfer, notification shall be provided to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 337. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 337. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be made available for employee training unless such training 
     is consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4101 et seq., 
     as amended.
       Sec. 338. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     enforce the requirement that airport charges make the as 
     airport self-sustaining as possible or the prohibition 
     against revenue diversion in the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 47107) against Hot Springs 
     Memorial Field in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on the grounds of 
     such airport's failure to collect fair market rental value 
     for the facilities known as Kimery Park and Family Park: 
     Provided, That any fees collected by any person for the use 
     of such parks above those required for the operation and 
     maintenance of such parks shall be remitted to such airport: 
     Provided further, That the Federal Aviation Administration 

[[Page S12045]]
     does not find that any use of, or structures on, Kimery Park and Family 
     Park are incompatible with the safe and efficient use of the 
     airport.
       Sec. 339. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this 
     section, 180 days after attaining eligibility for an 
     immediate retirement annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8336 or 5 U.S.C. 
     8412, an individual shall not be eligible to receive 
     compensation under 5 U.S.C. 8105-8106 resulting from work 
     injuries associated with employment with the Department of 
     Transportation (excluding the Maritime Administration).
       (b) An individual who, on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, is eligible to receive an immediate annuity described in 
     subsection (a) may continue to receive such compensation 
     under 5 U.S.C. 8105-8106 until March 31, 1996.
       (c) For the purposes of section (a), the time an individual 
     has spent on the worker's compensation rolls shall be counted 
     as regular employment time.
       Sec. 340. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to pay the salaries and expenses of any individual to arrange 
     tours of scientists or engineers employed by or working for 
     the People's Republic of China, to hire citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China to participate in research 
     fellowships sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 
     or other modal administrations of the Department of 
     Transportation, or to provide training or any form of 
     technology transfer to scientists or engineers employed by or 
     working for the People's Republic of China.
       Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Federal Transit Administration's field operations and 
     oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority in any location other than from the Washington, 
     D.C. metropolitan area.
       Sec. 342. In addition to the sums made available to the 
     Department of Transportation, $8,421,000 shall be available 
     on the effective date of legislation transferring certain 
     rail and motor carrier functions from the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission to the Department of Transportation: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be available only to the extent 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That of the fees 
     collected pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 in fiscal year 1996 by 
     the successors of the Interstate Commerce Commission, one-
     twelfth of $8,300,000 of those fees shall be made available 
     for each month during fiscal year 1996 that the successors of 
     the Interstate Commerce Commission carry out the transferred 
     rail and motor carrier functions.
       Sec. 343. Notwithstanding any other law, the funds 
     available for obligation to carry out the project in West 
     Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 149(a)(87) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 101-17; 101 Stat. 194) 
     shall be made available for obligation to carry out the 
     project for Lake Charles, Louisiana, authorized by item 17 of 
     the table in section 1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2038).
       Sec. 344. Improvements identified as highest priority by 
     section 1069(t) of Public Law 102-240 and funded pursuant to 
     section 118(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code, shall not 
     be treated as an allocation for Interstate maintenance for 
     such fiscal year under section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United 
     States Code, and sections 1013(c), 1015(a)(1), and 1015(b)(1) 
     of Public Law 102-240: Provided further, any discretionary 
     grant made pursuant to Public Law 99-663 shall not be subject 
     to Section 1015 of Public Law 102-240.
       Sec. 345. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Labor and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall, within three months of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, carry out research to identify 
     successful telecommuting programs in the public and private 
     sectors and provide for the dissemination to the public of 
     information regarding the establishment of successful 
     telecommuting programs and the benefits and costs of 
     telecommuting. Within one year of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress its 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding 
     telecommuting developed under this section.
       Sec. 346. Notwithstanding section 1003(c) of Public Law 
     102-240, authorizations for the Indian Reservation Roads 
     under Section 1003(a)(6)(A) of Public Law 102-240 shall be 
     exempt from any reduction in authorizations for budget 
     compliance.
       Sec. 347. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 1996, the Secretary shall allocate to a State an 
     additional amount of funding for its Federal-aid highway 
     programs on a dollar for dollar basis to the extent that 
     prior year unobligated balances are withdrawn and canceled. 
     Such funds are subject to the obligation ceiling for Federal-
     aid Highways set by annual appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 348. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 1996, a State may, at its option, transfer those 
     funds authorized or appropriated for highway demonstration 
     projects under Public Law 102-240, Public Law 100-17, Public 
     Law 97-424, or under an applicable appropriations act for the 
     Department of Transportation, to its apportionment under 
     section 104(b)(1), (2), (3), (5), and 144 of title 23, United 
     States Code: Provided, That demonstration projects upon which 
     such funds are drawn have not gone to construction (although 
     obligations may have been incurred for preliminary 
     engineering or environmental studies). Funds transferred 
     under this section shall be subject to the laws, regulations, 
     policies, and procedures, relating to the apportionment to 
     which they are transferred and shall be subject to the 
     obligation ceiling for Federal-aid highways set by annual 
     appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 349. Interstate Compact Infrastructure Banks.--Chapter 
     3 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by the addition 
     of the following new section 334:
       ``Sec. 334. Interstate Compact Infrastructure Banks.--(a) 
     Consent to Interstate Compacts.--In order to increase public 
     investment, attract needed private investment, and promote an 
     intermodal transportation network, Congress grants consent to 
     the States to enter into interstate compacts establishing 
     transportation infrastructure banks to promote regional or 
     multi-State investment in transportation infrastructure and 
     thereby improve economic productivity.
       ``(b) Assistance for Transportation Projects, Programs, and 
     Activities.--An Interstate Compact Transportation 
     Infrastructure Bank (Infrastructure Bank) established under 
     this section may make loans, issue debt under the authority 
     of the Infrastructure Bank's State jurisdictions either 
     jointly or separately as the Infrastructure Bank and its 
     jurisdictions determine, and provide other assistance to 
     public or private entities constructing, or proposing to 
     construct or initiate, transportation projects, programs, or 
     activities that are eligible to receive financial assistance 
     under--
       ``(1) title 23, United States Code, and the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and
       ``(2) chapters 53 and 221 and subtitle VII, part B, of this 
     title.
       ``(c) Forms of Assistance.--An Infrastructure Bank may loan 
     or provide other assistance to a public or private entity in 
     an amount equal to all or part of the cost of construction or 
     capital cost of a qualifying project. The amount of any loan 
     or other assistance received for a qualifying project under 
     this section may be subordinated to any other debt financing 
     for the project. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `other assistance' includes any use of funds for the purpose 
     of credit enhancements, use as a capital reserve for bond or 
     debt instrument financing, bond or debt instrument financing 
     issuance costs, bond or debt issuance financing insurance, 
     subsidizing of interest rates, letters of credit, credit 
     instruments, bond or debt financing instrument security, 
     other forms of debt financing that relate to the qualifying 
     project, and other leveraging tools approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Interstate Compact Transportation Infrastructure Bank 
     Requirements.--In order to qualify an Interstate Compact 
     Transportation Infrastructure Bank for capitalization grants 
     under this section, each participating State shall--
       ``(1) deposit into the Infrastructure Bank, from non-
     Federal or Federal sources other than this title or title 23, 
     United States Code, an amount equal to 25 percent of each 
     capitalization grant or, if lower because of the proportion 
     of Federal lands in the State, the proportional non-Federal 
     share that a State would otherwise pay on the basis of 
     section 120(b) of title 23;
       ``(2) ensure that the Infrastructure Bank maintains on a 
     continuing basis an investment grade rating on its debt 
     issuances or has a sufficient level of bond or debt financing 
     instrument insurance to maintain the viability of the fund;
       ``(3) ensure that investment income generated by the funds 
     deposited into an Infrastructure Bank shall be--
       ``(A) credited to the Infrastructure Bank;
       ``(B) available for use in providing loans and other 
     assistance to qualifying projects, programs, or activities 
     from the Infrastructure Bank; and
       ``(C) invested in U.S. Treasury securities, bank deposits, 
     or such other financing instruments as the Secretary may 
     provide to earn interest to enhance the leveraging of 
     qualifying transportation activities;
       ``(4) provide that the repayment of a loan or other 
     assistance to a State from any loan under this section may be 
     credited to the Infrastructure Bank or obligated for any 
     purpose for which the loaned funds were available under this 
     title or title 23;
       ``(5) ensure that any loan from an Infrastructure Bank 
     shall bear any positive interest the Bank determines 
     appropriate to make the qualifying project feasible;
       ``(6) ensure that repayment of any loan from an 
     Infrastructure Bank shall commence not later than five years 
     after the facility has opened to traffic or the project, 
     activity or facility has been completed;
       ``(7) ensure that the term for repaying any loan shall not 
     exceed 30 years from the date of obligation of the loan;
       ``(8) limit any assignment, transfer, or loan to an 
     Infrastructure Bank to not more than the amount which a State 
     is entitled to under subsection (f) of this section; and
       ``(9) require the Infrastructure Bank to make an annual 
     report to the Secretary on its status no later than September 
     30 of each year.
       ``(e) Secretarial Requirements.--In administering this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) ensure that federal disbursements for capital 
     reserves shall be at a rate consistent with historic rates 
     for the Federal-aid highway program; and
       ``(2) specify procedures and guidelines for establishing, 
     operating, and making loans from an Infrastructure Bank.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations; Contributions From 
     Title 23 Apportionments.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     established under section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) to carry out this section not more 
     than $250,000,000 in Fiscal Year 1996.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 23, United 
     States Code, and Public Law 102-240 (Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), a State may 
     contribute to an Infrastructure Bank up to 10 percent of 
     federal funds 

[[Page S12046]]
     apportioned under section 104(b) of title 23 that are subject to the 
     annual Federal-aid Highways obligation limitation, except for 
     interstate construction.
       ``(3) A state may disburse funds appropriated under 
     paragraph (f)(1) of this subsection or contributed under 
     (f)(2) of this subsection to an Infrastructure Bank at a rate 
     that does not exceed the traditional rate of disbursement for 
     the Airport Improvement Program or the Federal-aid Highway 
     program, respectively.
       ``(g) State Allocation.--The Secretary shall apportion to 
     the chief executive of each State choosing to participate in 
     an Infrastructure Bank the percentage allocation of the 
     amount available under paragraph (e)(1) of this section on 
     the first day of the fiscal year, as follows:

``State                                                      Percentage
  ``Alabama....................................................... 1.26
  ``Alaska.........................................................5.64
  ``Arizona....................................................... 2.20
  ``Arkansas...................................................... 0.74
  ``California.................................................... 8.57
  ``Colorado...................................................... 2.31
  ``Connecticut................................................... 0.74
  ``Delaware...................................................... 0.04
  ``District of Columbia...........................................0.01
  ``Florida........................................................6.49
  ``Georgia........................................................3.08
  ``Hawaii.........................................................2.54
  ``Idaho..........................................................0.75
  ``Illinois.......................................................3.92
  ``Indiana........................................................1.46
  ``Iowa...........................................................0.95
  ``Kansas.........................................................0.68
  ``Kentucky.......................................................1.80
  ``Louisiana......................................................1.34
  ``Maine..........................................................0.66
  ``Maryland.......................................................0.84
  ``Massachusetts..................................................1.72
  ``Michigan.......................................................2.68
  ``Minnesota......................................................1.59
  ``Mississippi....................................................0.76
  ``Missouri.......................................................1.92
  ``Montana........................................................1.10
  ``Nebraska.......................................................0.87
  ``Nevada.........................................................1.46
  ``New Hampshire..................................................0.28
  ``New Jersey.....................................................1.16
  ``New Mexico.....................................................0.98
  ``New York.......................................................5.82
  ``North Carolina.................................................2.92
  ``North Dakota...................................................0.61
  ``Ohio...........................................................2.32
  ``Oklahoma.......................................................0.97
  ``Oregon.........................................................1.15
  ``Pennsylvania...................................................3.29
  ``Rhode Island...................................................0.39
  ``South Carolina.................................................1.05
  ``South Dakota...................................................0.55
  ``Tennessee......................................................2.13
  ``Texas..........................................................7.64
  ``Utah...........................................................1.04
  ``Vermont........................................................0.22
  ``Virginia.......................................................2.91
  ``Washington.....................................................1.78
  ``West Virginia..................................................0.58
  ``Wisconsin......................................................1.41
  ``Wyoming........................................................0.74
  ``Puerto Rico....................................................0.99
       ``(g)  United States Not Obligated.--The deposit of Federal 
     apportionments into an Infrastructure Bank shall not be 
     construed as a commitment, guarantee, or obligation on the 
     part of the United States to any third party, nor shall any 
     third party have any right against the United States for 
     payment solely by virtue of the deposit. Furthermore, any 
     security or debt financing instrument issued by an 
     Infrastructure Bank shall expressly state that the security 
     or instrument does not constitute a commitment, guarantee, or 
     obligation of the United States.
       ``(h) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335 and 6503 
     of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply to funds 
     used as a capital reserve under this section.
       ``(i) Program Administration.--For each fiscal year, a 
     State may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank an amount not 
     to exceed two percent of the Federal funds deposited into 
     that Infrastructure Bank by the State to provide for the 
     reasonable costs of administering the fund.''.
       (b) Rescission of Contract Authorization.--Of the available 
     contract authority balances under the account entitled 
     ``Grants-In-Aid for Airports'' in this Act, $250,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 350. (a) In consultation with the employees of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and such nongovernmental 
     experts in personnel management systems as he may employ, and 
     notwithstanding the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, and other Federal personnel laws, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall develop and implement, not later than 
     January 1, 1996, a personnel management system for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration that addresses the unique 
     demands on the agency's workforce. Such new system shall, at 
     a minimum, provide for greater flexibility in the hiring, 
     training, compensation, and location of personnel.
       (b) The provisions of title 5, United States Code, shall 
     not apply to the new personnel management system developed 
     and implemented pursuant to subsection (a), with the 
     exception of:
       (1) Section 2302(b), relating to whistleblower protection;
       (2) Section 7118(b)(7), relating to limitations on the 
     right to strike;
       (3) Section 7204, relating to antidiscrimination;
       (4) Chapter 73, relating to suitability, security, and 
     conduct;
       (5) Chapter 81, relating to compensation for work injury; 
     and
       (6) Chapters 83-85, 87, and 89, relating to retirement and 
     insurance coverage.
       Sec. 351. (a) In consultation with such non-governmental 
     experts in acquisition management systems as he may employ, 
     and notwithstanding provisions of Federal acquisition law, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement, 
     not later than January 1, 1996, an acquisition management 
     system for the Federal Aviation Administration that addresses 
     the unique needs of the agency and, at a minimum, provides 
     for more timely and cost-effective acquisitions of equipment 
     and materials.
       (b) The following provisions of Federal acquisition law 
     shall not apply to the new acquisition management system 
     developed and implemented pursuant to subsection (a):
       (1) Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 252-266);
       (2) The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     401 et seq.);
       (3) The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-355);
       (4) The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), except 
     that all reasonable opportunities to be awarded contracts 
     shall be provided to small business concerns and small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals;
       (5) The Competition in Contracting Act;
       (6) Subchapter V of Chapter 35 of title 31, relating to the 
     procurement protest system;
       (7) The Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 U.S.C. 
     759); and
       (8) The Federal Acquisition Regulation and any laws not 
     listed in (a) through (e) of this section providing authority 
     to promulgate regulations in the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       Sec. 352. Section 40118(h)(2) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the second sentence in that 
     paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 
     ``After review and a public hearing, the Secretary may end 
     any part of the authority of the agency to impose a passenger 
     facility fee, except for that portion necessary to make 
     payments for debt service due by the agency on indebtedness 
     incurred to carry out an eligible airport-related project.''
       Sec. 353. Funds provided in this Act for bonuses and cash 
     awards for employees of the Department of Transportation 
     shall be reduced by $752,852, which limits fiscal year 1995 
     obligation authority to no more than $25,875,075: Provided, 
     That this provision shall be applied to funds for Senior 
     Executive Service bonuses, merit pay, and other bonuses and 
     cash awards.
       Sec. 354. 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. 355. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any 
     subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption 
     provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions 
     from the disclosure requirements of 49 CFR Part 580 for any 
     class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 356. (a) The Federal Aviation Administration Technical 
     Center located at the Atlantic City International Airport in 
     Pomona, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``William J. Hughes Technical Center''.
       (b) Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
     paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration Technical Center referred to in 
     section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``William J. Hughes Technical Center''.
       Sec. 357. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     close any multi-mission small boat stations or subunits: 
     Provided, That the Secretary may implement any management 
     efficiencies within the small boat unit system, such as 
     modifying the operational posture of units or reallocating 
     resources as necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime 
     public nationwide, provided that no stations or subunits may 
     be closed.
       Sec. 358. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the $29,596,000 available for obligation authorized by item 
     21 of the table in section 1105(f) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2038), $6,000,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation to carry out surface transportation projects in 
     Louisiana. Of this amount, $5,000,000 shall be made available 
     for completion of the I-10 and I-610 project in New Orleans, 
     Louisiana and $1,000,000 shall be made available for three 
     highway studies of which $250,000 is provided for a study to 
     widen US 84/LA 6 traversing north Louisiana, $250,000 is 
     provided for a study to widen La. Hwy 42 from US Hwy. 61 to 
     La. Hwy. 44 and extend to I-10 in East Ascension Parish and 
     $500,000 is provided for a study to connect Interstate 20 on 
     both sides of the Ouachita River.
       Sec. 359. Transfer of Certain Federal Property in New 
     Jersey.--The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     transferring certain Federal property to the city of Hoboken, 
     New Jersey'', approved September 27, 1982 (Public Law 97-268, 
     96 Stat. 1140), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding ``and'' at the end, and
       (2) by striking ``Stat. 220), and'' in subsection (b) and 
     all that follows through ``New Jersey; concurrent with'' and 
     inserting the following: ``Stat. 220);
     concurrent with''.
    TITLE IV--PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF MANDATORY STANDARDS AND 
 PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE ACTIONS OF ARBITRATORS IN THE ARBITRATION OF 
  LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING TRANSIT AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE NATIONAL 
                              CAPITAL AREA

     SECTION 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Capital Area 
     Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that-- 

[[Page S12047]]

       (1) affordable public transportation is essential to the 
     economic vitality of the national capital area and is an 
     essential component of regional efforts to improve air 
     quality to meet environmental requirements and to improve the 
     health of both residents of and visitors to the national 
     capital area as well as to preserve the beauty and dignity of 
     the Nation's capital;
       (2) use of mass transit by both residents of and visitors 
     to the national capital area is substantially affected by the 
     prices charged for such mass transit services, prices that 
     are substantially affected by labor costs, since more than 
     \2/3\ of operating costs are attributable to labor costs;
       (3) labor costs incurred in providing mass transit in the 
     national capital area have increased at an alarming rate and 
     wages and benefits of operators and mechanics currently are 
     among the highest in the Nation;
       (4) higher operating costs incurred for public transit in 
     the national capital area cannot be offset by increasing 
     costs to patrons, since this often discourages ridership and 
     thus undermines the public interest in promoting the use of 
     public transit;
       (5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the 
     governmental entities that are responsible for subsidy 
     payments for public transit services since local governments 
     generally, and the District of Columbia government in 
     particular, are operating under severe fiscal constraints;
       (6) imposition of mandatory standards applicable to 
     arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes involving 
     interstate compact agencies operating in the national capital 
     area will ensure that wage increases are justified and do not 
     exceed the ability of transit patrons and taxpayers to fund 
     the increase; and
       (7) Federal legislation is necessary under Article I of 
     section 8 of the United States Constitution to balance the 
     need to moderate and lower labor costs while maintaining 
     industrial peace.
       (b) Purpose.--It is therefore the purpose of this Act to 
     adopt standards governing arbitration which must be applied 
     by arbitrators resolving disputes involving interstate 
     compact agencies operating in the national capital area in 
     order to lower operating costs for public transportation in 
     the Washington metropolitan area.

     SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Title--
       (1) the term ``arbitration'' means--
       (A) the arbitration of disputes, regarding the terms and 
     conditions of employment, that is required under an 
     interstate compact governing an interstate compact agency 
     operating in the national capital area; and
       (B) does not include the interpretation and application of 
     rights arising from an existing collective bargaining 
     agreement;
       (2) the term ``arbitrator'' refers to either a single 
     arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen under 
     applicable procedures;
       (3) an interstate compact agency's ``funding ability'' is 
     the ability of the interstate compact agency, or of any 
     governmental jurisdiction which provides subsidy payments or 
     budgetary assistance to the interstate compact agency, to 
     obtain the necessary financial resources to pay for wage and 
     benefit increases for employees of the interstate compact 
     agency;
       (4) the term ``interstate compact agency operating in the 
     national capital area'' means any interstate compact agency 
     which provides public transit services;
       (5) the term ``interstate compact agency'' means any agency 
     established by an interstate compact to which the District of 
     Columbia is a signatory; and
       (6) the term ``public welfare'' includes, with respect to 
     arbitration under an interstate compact--
       (A) the financial ability of the individual jurisdictions 
     participating in the compact to pay for the costs of 
     providing public transit services; and
       (B) the average per capita tax burden, during the term of 
     the collective bargaining agreement to which the arbitration 
     relates, of the residents of the Washington, D.C. 
     metropolitan area, and the effect of an arbitration award 
     rendered pursuant to such arbitration on the respective 
     income or property tax rates of the jurisdictions which 
     provide subsidy payments to the interstate compact agency 
     established under the compact.

     SEC. 404. STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATORS.

       (a) Factors in Making Arbitration Award.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area may not make a finding or a decision for inclusion in a 
     collective bargaining agreement governing conditions of 
     employment without considering the following factors:
       (1) The existing terms and conditions of employment of the 
     employees in the bargaining unit.
       (2) All available financial resources of the interstate 
     compact agency.
       (3) The annual increase or decrease in consumer prices for 
     goods and services as reflected in the most recent consumer 
     price index for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United 
     States Department of Labor.
       (4) The wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of the 
     employment of other employees who perform, in other 
     jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C. standard metropolitan 
     statistical area, services similar to those in the bargaining 
     unit.
       (5) The special nature of the work performed by the 
     employees in the bargaining unit, including any hazards or 
     the relative ease of employment, physical requirements, 
     educational qualifications, job training and skills, shift 
     assignments, and the demands placed upon the employees as 
     compared to other employees of the interstate compact agency.
       (6) The interests and welfare of the employees in the 
     bargaining unit, including--
       (A) the overall compensation presently received by the 
     employees, having regard not only for wage rates but also for 
     wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and 
     other excused absences;
       (B) all benefits received by the employees, including 
     previous bonuses, insurance, and pensions; and
       (C) the continuity and stability of employment.
       (7) The public welfare.
       (b) Compact Agency's Funding Ability.--An arbitrator 
     rendering an arbitration award involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area may not, with respect to a collective bargaining 
     agreement governing conditions of employment, provide for 
     salaries and other benefits that exceed the interstate 
     compact agency's funding ability.
       (c) Requirements for Final Award.--In resolving a dispute 
     submitted to arbitration involving the employees of an 
     interstate compact agency operating in the national capital 
     area, the arbitrator shall issue a written award that 
     demonstrates that all the factors set forth in subsections 
     (a) and (b) have been considered and applied. An award may 
     grant an increase in pay rates or benefits (including 
     insurance and pension benefits), or reduce hours of work, 
     only if the arbitrator concludes that any costs to the agency 
     do not adversely affect the public welfare. The arbitrator's 
     conclusion regarding the public welfare must be supported by 
     substantial evidence.

     SEC. 405. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.

       (a) Modifications and Finality of Award.--In the case of an 
     arbitration award to which section 404 applies, the 
     interstate compact agency and the employees in the bargaining 
     unit, through their representative, may agree in writing upon 
     any modifications to the award within 10 days after the award 
     is received by the parties. After the end of that 10-day 
     period, the award, with any such modifications, shall become 
     binding upon the interstate compact agency, the employees in 
     the bargaining unit, and the employees' representative.
       (b) Implementation.--Each party to an award that becomes 
     binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions necessary 
     to implement the award.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Within 60 days after an award becomes 
     binding under subsection (a), the interstate compact agency 
     or the exclusive representative of the employees concerned 
     may file a civil action in a court which has jurisdiction 
     over the interstate compact agency for review of the award. 
     The court shall review the award on the record, and shall 
     vacate the award or any part of the award, after notice and a 
     hearing, if--
       (1) the award is in violation of applicable law;
       (2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
       (3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or 
     capricious;
       (4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing contrary to the 
     provisions of this title or other statutes or rules that 
     apply to the arbitration so as to substantially prejudice the 
     rights of a party;
       (5) there was partiality or misconduct by the arbitrator 
     prejudicing the rights of a party;
       (6) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or bias on 
     the part of the arbitrator; or
       (7) the arbitrator did not comply with the provisions of 
     section 404.
                                [TITLE V

                     [ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       [Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York 
     City, New York.]
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss H.R. 2002, 
the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and related agencies 
appropriations bill.
  This bill has been a challenge--a challenge to meet the over arching 
goal of deficit reduction while at the 

[[Page S12048]]
same time providing the resources necessary to address the Nation's 
infrastructure needs. The 602(b) allocation for this bill is $12.4 
billion in budget authority and $36.561 billion in outlays--$200 
million less in budget authority and $386 million less in outlays than 
the House allocation. My colleagues should know that the bill as 
reported from the committee is right at its 602(b) allocation for both 
budget authority and outlays. So any amendment that affects either 
budget authority or outlays needs to be budget neutral.
  A number of my colleagues are unhappy that we could not do more 
either for individual projects or for transportation in general.
  I too wish that more could have been done.
  The allocation was very restrictive; but, I want to make this very 
clear to the Members. The allocation for the subcommittee was higher 
than what was implied by the budget resolution that many have endorsed. 
If the committee had strictly adhered to the budget resolution's 
assumptions for Transportation, both budget authority and outlays would 
have been reduced even further. The budget resolution assumed 
approximately $20 million less in budget authority and $350 million 
less in outlays. The outlay assumption in the budget resolution would 
have been particularly difficult to satisfy. To accommodate the outlay 
assumptions of the resolution, the bill would have had to totally 
eliminate transit operating assistance, or to put it in perspective, 
reduce the Federal aid highway obligation ceiling by 13 percent.
  I should point out to my colleagues, the Transportation Subcommittee 
has limited control over outlays in a given year. Over 69 percent of 
the total outlays are from prior years' commitments and on top of that 
another $330 million is outside the subcommittee's control because 
highway authorizing legislation has made the minimum allocation program 
and the highway demonstration projects exempt from any spending 
controls. The net effect is that over 70 percent of the bill's outlays 
occur regardless of what we do in the current year--and next year we 
will be further restricted in funding new programs.
  Transportation is unique in another way because it pays for itself. 
This fiscal year, 1995, almost 76 percent of the budget is financed 
through the various trust funds. The bill before you maintains the user 
fee concept. However, in order to address the fiscal year 1996 
constraints and to be in a better position for fiscal year 1997 there 
are a number of provisions included that deal with the financial 
operations of the Department and the need for capital and continued 
investment in the Nation's infrastructure, such as highway trust fund 
receipts are not increasing, yet demand for surface transportation is 
increasing, therefore, I am recommending the creation of State 
infrastructure banks; in order to assist the FAA better manage its 
personnel and equipment purchases, bill language on reforming those 
areas is included; to help States avoid a 20-percent reduction in new 
contract authority for highways in 1996, bill language is proposed to 
give States greater flexibility over the use of their highway dollars. 
And, finally there is direction to the FAA to recover fully the costs 
for providing services and for administrating various programs.
  These proposals have a direct effect on the Department's financial 
wherewithal, which should be of great concern to all of us.
  These proposals are not about jurisdiction They are about providing 
the tools and the resources that the Department of Transportation needs 
now and more importantly for the future. We cannot idly sit by.
  I hope that the financial and management proposals in this bill are 
supported by the full Senate. I welcome the debate that these proposals 
have generated. Because they are so important and affect all the modes 
of transportation, I thought that they needed consideration and input 
by the full Senate. As a colleague said, many of these are not new--
some of the reforms proposed were first requested by former Secretary 
of Transportation, Elizabeth Dole.
  Some of the committee's recommendations have already had the desired 
effect, and that is immediate consideration. I hope that the outcome 
will be that the authorizing committees in concert with the 
Appropriations Committee will propose legislation that makes changes in 
the way that the Department of Transportation currently does business.
  I have been very encouraged by the time and energy that members of 
the Commerce Committee immediately gave to the proposals in the 
aviation area; and, I am hopeful that we can reach some agreement in 
that area. Some form of aviation financing legislation must be enacted 
this session. On the other provisions, which are offered in response to 
transportation's overall fiscal situation, I ask for your support.
  I have also heard concerns expressed about the funding level for the 
ICC. The bill before you contains funding to pay for ICC functions that 
will transfer to DOT, $4.7 million; and funding to pay for ICC 
termination costs, $13.4 million. These funds were included without 
judgment as to what may succeed the present commission, which will be 
determined by authorizing legislation.
  I want to say that, Mr. President, that we have worked concurrently 
and in close harmony with the authorizing committees, both the Commerce 
Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked most 
particularly with Senator Chafee, chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and with Senator McCain, the subcommittee 
chairman, on aviation in the Committee on Commerce. We are hopeful that 
these matters will move speedily to a conclusion.
  Again, I emphasize that we are not attempting to usurp jurisdiction, 
because it is not a jurisdictional question, it is a survival question, 
in many instances, and a question of what our future infrastructure is 
going to be.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield to my close associate and former 
chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, for 
any opening statements he wishes to make relating to this bill. Then I 
will ask that the next moment be reserved for adopting the committee 
amendments, en bloc, and with a tabling motion followed on one of the 
committee amendments.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 (Ms. Snowe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, before I discuss my view of the bill 
that is before the Senate, I want to take a moment to thank Chairman 
Hatfield for the considerable work he has put into this bill.
  This was tough. The entire Transportation Subcommittee recognizes 
that we are fortunate to have Senator Hatfield as our new subcommittee 
chairman. Over the last several months, he has demonstrated a unique 
ability to provide balance to the discussion and to arrive at a 
consensus.
  I am not totally satisfied with the outcome of the bill, and I 
believe that the chairman shares my views. Our concern raises 
principally because the resources are lacking to confirm our belief of 
what ought to be invested in the transportation infrastructure in this 
country.
  We had several hearings, a thorough and complete set. The legislation 
before the Senate clearly demonstrates Senator Hatfield's leadership in 
putting this delicately balanced bill together. It probably fails to 
satisfy almost everyone, and the reason that the bill will fail to 
please is due to the inadequacy of resources. That is a pure and simple 
fact.
  I support H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 Transportation 
appropriations bill. I do it, however, with obvious reluctance. My 
reluctance has nothing to do with the chairman's product or any single 
provision in the bill. Again, I cannot emphasize it too often, it is 
attributable entirely to the shrinking size of the bill itself. It 
contains $1 billion less than we spent in 1995.
  Madam President, for the last 8 years, I stood before the Senate as 
chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, and though I miss that 

[[Page S12049]]
role, I am nevertheless pleased to continue as the ranking member on 
the Transportation Subcommittee. I stood here and argued for an 
increase in balanced spending for transportation, and I make no 
apologies, none, for supporting spending that invests in our Nation's 
infrastructure, spending that boosts our efficiency, our 
competitiveness, and our productivity.
  My view is no different than that of dozens of economists across the 
philosophical spectrum. While many things have changed here in 
Washington over the years, my views on transportation spending have 
not; neither have those of the dozens of economists that I refer to, 
who believe that investments in infrastructure pay off in so many areas 
in our society.
  Infrastructure investment promotes efficiency. It can promote a 
better quality of life as we travel from work to home, home to 
recreation, or home to shopping or vacation. It affects us, obviously, 
in those ways. The amenities of life are considerably improved.
  It also affects very directly our environmental condition. Nothing 
fouls the air more than the proliferation of automobiles, trucks, and 
machines that produce toxic chemicals into our air.
  We ought not to have to deal with this in an advanced society like 
ours. By providing a balanced transportation network, we could avoid 
much of that grief and much of those problems.
  We are short of resources. The bill before the Senate cuts our 
national investment in transportation by $1 billion. I continue to 
believe that cuts of this magnitude undermine our prosperity ultimately 
and harm the traveling public.
  When I spoke in opposition to the budget resolution that passed the 
Senate, I did so as a member of the Budget Committee. What I had in 
mind when I voted in opposition were moments like these. We all support 
spending cuts that are prudent and well reasoned and in the national 
economic interest. But the budget resolution does not allow 
selectivity. It requires us to adopt slash-and-destroy tactics. A $1 
billion cut in transportation demonstrates that fact.
  Look at the questions raised by this bill, at the needs it does not 
address, at the problems it will cause. While air traffic continues to 
rise, we find ourselves required to cut the FAA's operating budget more 
than $150 million below the President's request. While our Nation's 
cities are struggling to clean the air, minimize congestion, we slash 
mass transit operating subsidies, cuts that will increase fares, 
decrease service, and push more commuters out on the highways in their 
cars.
  After Amtrak has already gone through a painful series of service 
cuts and has reluctantly accepted a 23-percent cut in operating 
subsidies, we are now required to cut them even deeper and trigger yet 
another round of service reductions. I think that is ridiculous, for 
the United States, the leading economic power in the world, to have a 
railroad system that frankly compares to that in some of the developing 
countries. This Nation of ours is about 50th in per capita spending on 
infrastructure investments, and we rank way behind the countries that 
have the leading transportation systems, like France, like Germany, 
like Japan.
  I find it an intolerable condition. By the way, so do most, if not 
all, of our colleagues in this Chamber and I believe on the other side 
of the Capitol as well. And, we see it by the requests that come in--to 
me, and I know to Chairman Hatfield--by the dozens, from Members of the 
Senate who had specific projects that they wanted to be either 
initiated or continue. These were not in the tradition of what is 
commonly called bacon, or pork--whatever piece of the pig one chooses. 
The fact of the matter is, these requests were often very, very 
significant in terms of development of easier traffic routes and a more 
efficient economy in the region.
  There again, I hear it from almost all the Senators here--perhaps 
Senator Hatfield has heard more because he is now the chairman. But 
when I was chairman, I would get requests from virtually every State in 
this country, certainly every region.
  Here we have this incredible aviation system of ours. It handles 
millions of passenger miles each day. It works superbly. It is safe. 
But it is late, often. It is insufficient to meet the demands. As a 
consequence, we see the kind of pricing that I think could be lowered 
if we could expand the system to accommodate the growth.
  When our Nation's air traffic controllers are working under 
incredibly stressful conditions, we are going to penalize them further. 
We are going to require a reduction in their annual take-home pay by 
2.5 percent. It does not sound like a good idea, but we are forced into 
that position because of the inability to fund the needs for FAA.
  We are making these cuts not because they represent solid policy 
choices; we are making them because the budget resolution gives us no 
choice. Certainly, the Appropriations Committee is not to blame for 
these cuts. The chairman has done the best that he could, and I 
consider it a privilege and a honor to work with him. It is the best he 
could do. We are from different parties and different regions of the 
country, but we share a common interest in investments in 
transportation infrastructure. The chairman has done the best he could 
under the insufficient funding that is available to us.
  As chairman of this subcommittee for the last 8 years, even when 
times were better and more funding was available, I decried the budgets 
at those times because they were insufficient to keep up with the 
growth and demands of our Nation. Now, as the resources are reduced 
substantially--and, yes, I would like to see us balance the budget, but 
I would not like to see it at a pace that is perilous to the economic 
well-being of this country, nor would I like to see it in such a way 
that it deprives us of the opportunity to be the competitive nation 
that we ought to be.
  I fought for larger investments in transportation infrastructure. It 
pained me to see the list of obsolete bridges that exist all over the 
country--a lot in my own State of New Jersey, the most densely 
populated State in the country, with very dense traffic. It pained me 
to see the inadequate roadways being ever more worn down by excessive 
traffic. I found it very difficult to accept the kind of intercity rail 
service and transit service that we see around our country when, again, 
we are the most prosperous nation in the world.
  We have made mistakes, yes. But the fact is, we have the ability to 
finance these things. We have an aviation system straining to meet 
schedules and service requirements because we, once again, are not 
making adequate investments. Be that as it may, we are guided, as I 
said earlier, by the budget resolution, not by our desires nor our 
beliefs in what ought to be taking place.
  This bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, included some 
substantial increases, especially in the areas of highway and airport 
grants and paid for those increases with severe cuts in mass transit 
and Amtrak. The Senate bill before us, however, is almost $400 million 
in outlays below the House bill. As a result, those programs that are 
treated most generously in the Senate are often frozen. Everything else 
has been cut.
  It is my hope that when this bill reaches conference, our 
subcommittee allocation will rise to the level that is approved by the 
House and we will have more money to work with. At that time I hope we 
can address some of the most severe funding cuts in the bill.
  Some of the most problematic provisions that I find in our bill 
include this provision I discussed, to cut the pay of our air traffic 
controllers. I know the incentive pay program, which is cut in this 
bill, was initially designed as a one-time initiative to bring the 
structure back. It was just after the illegal strike that took place, 
and it was designed to strengthen and fill the personnel requirements 
that we needed. But now, this is many years later, it is a basic 
element in every air traffic controller's compensation plan.
  So it is my hope, when we get to conference and can add more funding 
to the FAA operations, we will be able to avoid a pay cut for our air 
traffic controllers. They work hard; they earn their money. We want 
their nerves to be good and calm, and we want them to be able focus on 
their job.
  I am equally concerned with language in the bill which exempts the 
FAA system from many civil service 

[[Page S12050]]
rules and the language requiring workers on workers' comp to retire, 
saying to them, ``You have to quit now because you are deriving 
benefits from workers' compensation.'' It is without, I think, an 
understanding that these people may be able to get back to work in the 
not-too-distant future and would probably like to have their positions 
back if they are able.
  There is no question, no question in my mind at all, that we need 
serious reform at the FAA. But true reform has to be comprehensive.
  I hope and I know that the chairman of the Commerce Committee, with 
me, will move forward with appropriate comprehensive reform legislation 
so that we do not need to take this kind of action in the final 
appropriations bill. I know that, if Senator Hatfield was in a better 
position to provide more funding in the FAA's budget request, he would 
not be proposing some of these ideas in the appropriations bill. But he 
was forced to take an action, as they say, to balance the books.
  Finally, I am concerned with the formula change in transit operating 
assistance. Simply put, the Federal Government has been the partner in 
the transit systems around the country and has provided some measure of 
funding. We find it in New Jersey, and I know we find it in States 
around the country. But this program is being cut now by 44 percent, 
which means that unless the States can come up with, or the local 
communities, or the metropolitan trading area authorities can come up 
with more money, fares are going to go up significantly.
  This program is being cut 44 percent, the largest single cut of any 
major formula program in the bill. And make no mistake about it, the 
cuts will mean transit service reductions. People are going to have to 
pay more to get to work, to get to shopping, and to get around the 
community. So this is going to be painful when these increases finally 
arrive at home.
  The formula has been changed, so that larger urban systems will have 
disproportionately larger cuts than the more rural, smaller systems. 
And it makes the problem even worse in many of the cities, including 
the cities in my State.
  I know many people view this provision as a way to spare some of 
these transit agencies that are most dependent on Federal assistance. 
However, this provision can also be viewed as rewarding the very 
municipalities that have made the least local funding commitment to 
transit. I hope that this formula change will be reviewed or done away 
with during the conference committee action on the bill.
  Despite all these reservations, Madam President, I once again commend 
my colleague and friend and chairman for his hard work on this bill. He 
has done an extraordinary job with the resources available. I thank him 
for the cooperative spirit and fair-mindedness that he has always 
maintained throughout the process.
  I also want to thank the staff people who have been so helpful--on 
the chairman's side Pat McCann, Anne Miano, and Joyce Rose, people who 
were part of my staff when I was chairman. They have continued to do 
the work just as faithfully and just as expertly without any glitches 
as a result of the party change there, people who are committed to the 
assignment of transportation appropriations. And they do it well.
  And I thank my own staff person, Peter Rogoff, for his continued 
assistance and his personal growth on the job; he has taken over more 
responsibility and has done more than well.
  As the chairman has already noted, the bill before us is at its 
ceiling both in budget authority and outlays. So any amendments that 
are offered will have to be fully offset in both budget authority and 
outlays.
  I want to join the chairman in our hope that any of those who have 
amendments will come to the floor as soon as possible so that we can 
continue progress on the bill.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Joanne Horne, a 
congressional fellow with the Transportation Subcommittee, be granted 
privileges of the floor during the debate on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator 
Lautenberg of New Jersey, who served ably as the former chairman of 
this subcommittee--and I had the privilege of working with him over a 
number of years--for his eloquent description of the bill and for his 
wonderful support and cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. I 
made comments about that previously in my opening remarks. But he was 
at that time unable to be here on the floor present, and I wanted him 
to hear it directly from me.


                          Committee Amendments

  Madam President, I have some unanimous consent requests that have 
been cleared on both sides.
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments 
be considered and agreed to en bloc, except for section 352 of the 
bill, page 74, lines 1 through 8.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered as 
original text for the purpose of further amendment and that no points 
of order be waived thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to table the committee 
amendment, section 352 on page 74, lines 1 through 8 at this time. And 
I might just briefly state this committee amendment that was to give 
authority to the airport agencies; that is, the local airport 
authorities, to raise the passenger fees from $3 to $5. We got a lot of 
response from those effected carriers and other interested parties. We 
think we have their attention.
  So I now move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I am happy at this time to yield to 
the Senator from Colorado, who I understand has some matters to bring 
before the body.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I want to express my thanks to the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member for their efforts.
  I rise to inquire about a concern I have with regard to the 
appropriations that are described on page 179 of the committee report 
under the title of ``New Systems.''
  Madam President, my concern is specifically and my understanding is 
that our Federal statutes outline the process for the Department of 
Transportation to allocate funding for these new systems on, if you 
will, a merit basis; that is, after consideration in depth of the 
project, looking at the benefit it will have, and the cost it will have 
and the local participation it will have. Our Federal statutes 
anticipate that money would be allocated by the Department of 
Transportation on the merit basis.
  Yet, in looking at the committee report and reviewing the bill, it 
appears to me that what has been done here is the committee has 
earmarked all of the money in that category, and virtually nothing 
would be left for the Transportation Department to allocate to projects 
based on their merit.
  I raise that as a question, and ask the chairman if I have 
interpreted that correctly or if there are factors that I have not seen 
in reviewing it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Let me put this in context, if I might. A few years ago 
when we adopted the ISTEA legislation, before that time we had 
designated these various projects in report language. At that time, the 
authorizing committee identified those projects within the bill 
language legislating them into law. They identified a total of $666 
million to be expended annually for those designated programs in 
locations, descriptions, and costs, full-funding agreements and so 
forth. 

[[Page S12051]]

  The President sends up his budget by which the Department of 
Transportation expresses its views as to those projects most able to 
undertake the construction, all of the preliminaries being completed, 
and agreements having been signed by the Department of Transportation 
with those local entities. When you get to a cap on a figure in any 
account, you obviously then are in a position to have to make 
selections and priorities.
  We also find that when that legislative authorization has taken 
place, events tend to change those projects as you get down the road 
into them. As an example, Los Angeles has been having some recent 
difficulty in its project relating to its contractor, and as I 
understand that is under investigation. Therefore, things are kind of 
on hold.
  If we did not have this earmarking, as the Senator calls it, which 
really more precisely to try to distinguish it from other kinds of 
earmarks, we set these priorities within that $660 million, we would 
not have $688 million this year. We were able to take some unobligated 
funds to add to that to do a little bit more.
  By the way, we had $1.1 billion in requests from Members within this 
category of the $660 million cap. So what we have to do then is to 
identify those in dollars concurrent to those changing roles or 
changing rates of action and progress, and so forth. And that is why 
these are listed by certain number of dollars.
  Let me take as another example both New York and Portland. In 
Portland, OR, my home State, there was a shortfall in the next to the 
last increment to complete the light rail system in my city of 
Portland. There were a couple of years of shortfalls in terms of the 
moneys appropriated by the House and Senate, and so forth, which put a 
time lag into that project that had full funding and contracting 
already established. And so by being able to add a little over the 
President's request of $106 million, this catches both Portland and New 
York City up to date, which means we can complete the Portland project 
with one last increment in 1997. Otherwise, we might be forced into 
1998, which expands the costs, of course, because of the time 
extension.
  So those are the kinds of judgments we are called upon as a committee 
to make to maximize the dollars for these programs that we are 
committed to by contract, authorized and designated in the ISTEA 
legislation.
  Mr. BROWN. I understand the projects listed under fixed guideway 
modernization on 178 do total, or do involve the ISTEA presentation.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
  Mr. BROWN. Am I to understand that the ISTEA priority affects those 
in the new systems as well?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Yes, that is correct. And there is a formula that 
you will find on the guideway modernization, fixed guideway 
modernization on page 178. Those are allocated on the basis of formula 
set by the Department and in the legislation, ISTEA legislation.
  Mr. BROWN. I guess the concern I bring is the difficulty of falling 
into a circumstance where allocation of these funds is based on 
designation by legislative acts instead of what should be a merit 
focused formula that I understand section 5309 of our Federal law lays 
out. I am wondering if that objective criteria is what guides Congress 
in its selection here or if this involves simply an overriding 
objective criteria?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I can assure you that the basis the committee has used 
is purely merit. I believe that we have similar capacity to executive 
agencies to establish priorities by merit within the body of the 
Congress. I do not assume that only the executive branch can set those 
standards by merit. You will also find that there is a great 
correlation between what has been determined as merit in the committee 
and what the administration has also declared on the basis of merit. In 
other words, our merit basis tends to affirm, one affirm the other.
  Mr. BROWN. I understand the process that we have in the statute. I 
think the Senator can see my concern. The statute, as I understand, has 
with legislative authority laid out some fairly detailed guidelines as 
to how you would evaluate projects, and yet at least from the outside 
it appears that we use a different system in coming up with it.
  What the Senator is telling me is the statute is used by the 
administration in what they recommend to the Congress, and that the 
committee presumably looks at those ratings in making their decision, 
although they are not bound by them.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am saying basically, yes, that the administration 
sends up its recommendations. Take my city of Portland, for instance--
one of the highest because we are moving toward that completion offered 
by the administration. The addition between what the administration's 
level is and what we made on a basis of merit and maximizing the 
dollars and trying to complete the project within the existing contract 
was to add for the shortfalls of 2 previous years, and certainly I 
think that is within the prerogative of the congressional body and I 
think it is based on merit.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the Senator taking the time to go through 
this with me. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 2328

   (Purpose: To transfer additional funds for mass transit operating 
                              assistance)

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Santorum and myself and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself 
     and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2328.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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 30, line 16 ``$985,000,000'' and insert 
     $1,025,000,000''.
       On page 30, line 17, strike ``$2,105,850,000'' and insert 
     $2,145,850,000''.
       On page 30, line 20, strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$440,000,000''.
       On page 2, line 6, strike ``$56,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$55,400,000''.
       On page 3, line 6, strike ``$9,710,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,336,667''.
       On page 6, line 13, strike ``$139,689,000'' and insert 
     ``$134,689,000''.
       On page 16, line 22, strike ``$215,886,000'' and insert 
     ``$205,886,000''.
       On page 16, line 14, strike ``$70,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$86,000,000''.
       On page 30 line 12, strike ``$42,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$39,260,000''.
       On page 54, line 5, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000''.
       On page 54, line 8, strike ``99,364,000'' and insert 
     ``94,364,000''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, I add my words of 
commendation to those already articulated for the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the distinguished ranking member for an outstanding job which they have 
done and acknowledge the very grave difficulties in stretching a 
limited number of dollars to a great many important aspects of 
transportation.
  I serve on the Transportation Subcommittee and advised the 
distinguished chairman at the markup on the subcommittee of a number of 
concerns I had, one of which was the mass transit operating 
expenditures, which have been reduced very materially from $710 million 
in Federal operating assistance to $400 million. These Federal funds 
are used to keep transit fares down and to maintain service.
  The amendment which I have offered on behalf of Senator Santorum and 
myself would increase the funding by $40 million in budget authority 
and $24 million in outlays with a series of offsets which total $43.2 
million in budget authority and $24 million in outlays.
  This amendment is being offered to make some adjustment in operating 
assistance which is relatively minimal--a 10-percent increase but at 
least some effort to ameliorate and improve the tremendous losses which 
will be suffered across the country. These offsets have been very 
carefully calibrated to do the minimum amount of harm to the areas 
where the offsets are obtained.
  For example, on GSA rental payments, there is a $5 million offset in 
both budget authority and outlays which still leaves the Senate at 
$134.6 million which is above the House figure; a $10 million reduction 
in budget 

[[Page S12052]]
authority and $6 million in outlays from FAA research and development, 
which still leaves the Senate $205.9 million ahead of the House figure 
of $143 million; DOT working capital fund, a $5 million offset in 
budget authority and $3 million in outlays, which leaves the Senate at 
$95.4 million compared to $92.2 million for the House; the Federal 
Transit Administration, administration expenses, a reduction in budget 
authority of $2.74 million and outlays of $2.47 million, which leaves 
the Senate at $39.2 million equal to the House $39.2 million; an offset 
of $1.1 million in budget authority and $1 million in outlays from the 
Secretary of Transportation salaries and expenses, noting a very small 
reduction; and $3.37 million in budget authority and $2.53 million in 
outlays from Transportation planning, research and development, which 
leaves the Senate still ahead of the House $6.3 million to $3.3 
million.
  I omitted the figure of the Secretary of Transportation salaries and 
expenses, which still leaves the Senate figure $55.4 million, ahead of 
the House figure of $55 million. This has been a very, very carefully 
calibrated reduction in a number of accounts which I think can be 
accommodated without any undue problems.
  The information which has been provided to me from my Pennsylvania 
constituent group, the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal 
Transportation Authorities, and also provided to my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Santorum, shows the impact on transit authorities 
across the State which are very, very substantial.
  For example, in Wilkes-Barre there would be a loss of $409,000, which 
would require an increase in fares of 104 percent, from $1.10 to $2.25 
on fares, or a reduction of service of 39 percent, which would result 
in a customer loss of 680,000 riders.
  In Indiana, PA, for example, an operating loss of $28,260 would cause 
a fare increase of 80 percent, from $1 to $1.80, or reduction in 
service of some 25 percent.
  There would be losses across the board of a very substantial nature--
Allentown, Altoona, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Scranton, State College. In 
addition to the ones already referred to, a loss to Pittsburgh of some 
$3.75 million, and Philadelphia, $11.5 million.
  Now, this is minimal, as I say, Madam President. And I offer this 
modification with some fine-tuning to an excellent job already done by 
Senator Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg, looking across the entire 
spectrum of expenses in the transportation account. But this is being 
offered in an effort to try to bring some help to the mass transit 
riders. There has been a reduction in the fares for urban areas of 43.7 
percent, in rural transportation of 19.4 percent, which we had 
considered making it a modification and did not do so. But this I would 
consider minimal and necessary.
  The point has already been made about mass transit being necessary 
for the elderly and for the working poor. And at a time when we are 
considering the changes in the welfare laws, we really need to keep 
people on the move in the Philadelphia area, for example. Keep people 
moving from center city to suburban areas and moving in all the towns 
across Pennsylvania. I am sure these figures are duplicated, really, 
across the country.
  That states the essence of the position. And I would be delighted to 
yield at this time to my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Madam President. I will join my colleague 
from Pennsylvania in congratulating the chairman of the committee and 
the ranking member for their outstanding work on this bill. And I know 
how difficult it is.
  The chairman of the committee is often in our meetings talking about 
how the discretionary funds continue to get cut, and to try to 
reallocate those resources is a brutal task and one that is a thankless 
job, and you have to make tough decisions and you are not going to make 
a lot of people happy in that case. And I also say no one fights to 
make sure that discretionary spending gets a fair allocation out of the 
budget process more than the Senator from Oregon.
  I rise to join my colleague from Pennsylvania in what I agree with 
him is a modest amendment. If you look at what has happened over the 
last many years to mass transit funding in past Congresses, mass 
transit funding has suffered a disproportionate share in the cuts of 
the transportation budget for quite some time and continues in this 
round to suffer again a disproportionate share of the funding cuts.
  I understand we have priorities, and this was an attempt by the 
committee to try to order those priorities. What we are trying to do 
with this amendment is to try to in some way give back or create a 
higher priority for mass transit.
  I think the reason I am so enthusiastic in supporting this is because 
I strongly believe in mass transit and its role, not as just providing 
transportation to seniors who want to get to the store, which is 
obviously important, but the majority of riders on mass transit systems 
in this country use it to get to work.
  When you look at what is happening with the reductions in Federal 
funding and the increase in fares and what that means to particularly 
low-income families who rely on mass transit to get to work. When I 
served in the Congress, I represented an area called the Mon Valley, an 
old steel valley outside Pittsburgh. There are communities there that 
are now almost ghost towns, unfortunately. But these communities had 
incredibly high unemployment rates, virtually no jobs. Most all of the 
mills that were in these towns have closed down years ago. And the only 
way they could get to work, because most of them could not afford a 
car, was to get on the port authority bus, PAT bus in Pittsburgh, and 
go into town or some other job center.
  Well, because of cutbacks and the like, they had to discontinue 
services to a lot of these communities. So these people had absolutely 
no way to get to work. They could not afford a car. Unfortunately, in 
those areas crime was very high. Insurance rates were very high. Even 
if you could afford a car, in many cases you did not keep a car very 
long.
  So it was a difficult task, and I became very sensitized to the 
importance of mass transit as a link to a lot of urban areas; in small 
towns, for that matter, the link for the people who live in these poor 
communities where the jobs do not exist anymore.
  There are no jobs in North Philadelphia. They do not have many. If 
you want to get to work, you have got to somehow get into center city 
or out up into northeast or out in the suburbs. Those are the realities 
of living in urban areas today. And mass transit provides that very 
vital link.
  I find it ironic we are discussing this the day after we were talking 
about welfare reform. I have been on the floor here the last couple 
days talking about welfare reform. And I was in Philadelphia a couple 
months ago. We talked with a group of welfare recipients as well as 
advocates. And one of the things that they highlighted most to me was 
the need to continue mass transit funding.
  The response was, ``Why so?'' And it came back with, ``Well, if you 
are expecting these people to go to work, they have to have some way to 
get to work.''
  Obviously, most welfare recipients do not own cars. They do not have 
the resources to get a car. Many of them do not have friends who have 
cars or relatives, and they have to use mass transit. As we continue to 
cut back or increase fares, which is going to be the result of the 
action here, we are going to affect the ability for these people to 
hold jobs, and in fact if we are going to make them have jobs on 
welfare, to get those jobs and collect those benefits.
  So, that is why I rise in very strong support of this, I think, very 
minor reallocation of resources to recognize the importance of mass 
transportation for so many Americans who are trying to do what we want 
them to do, which is get to work, hold a job, and be responsible 
citizens, tax-paying citizens of our country.
  I wanted to mention one place in particular just so you do not think 
this is a problem of the big cities. This bill is, in fact, kinder to 
populations of under 200,000 people. So the big cities get a little 
bigger hit in this bill than the smaller areas. Maybe that should be 
the case, because a lot of the smaller 

[[Page S12053]]
areas are more dependent upon the Federal subsidy because they do not 
have the base of support that a lot of the larger urban areas have.
  But I wanted to pick up on what my colleague from Pennsylvania talked 
about. He talked about Indiana, PA. Indiana, PA, is famous--probably 
not famous to many people, a lot of people here--but it is famous 
because it is the birthplace of Jimmy Stewart. In fact, the Jimmy 
Stewart Airport--they just had a big commemoration of naming the 
airport after Jimmy Stewart. They opened up a museum there. Indiana, 
PA, is a town in western Pennsylvania that has just a tremendously 
tough time.
  Indiana County has the highest unemployment rate in the State. It is 
over 20 percent. With these cuts, as was reported by my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, it would go from $1 to $1.80; either that or have a 25 
percent reduction in service. That is going to be a big hardship on 
this community.
  So what we are trying to do is just ease the pain a little bit by 
adding some money to this account. I hope that we can get the support 
of our colleagues and stand up in conference and look at the House 
numbers and try to do a little bit more in recognition of the 
importance of mass transit for the employment of so many people in our 
urban settings who need to get to work.
  I want to congratulate my colleague from Pennsylvania for his 
amendment and his willingness to stand up and fight for what I believe 
is a very just cause. I am pleased to sponsor him and support him in 
his effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Airline Fares

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I will just take a moment to describe an 
amendment I have discussed with the chairman and the ranking member on 
this appropriations bill. I intend to offer an amendment that I hope 
they will accept this evening which calls for a study by the Department 
of Transportation on the subject of airline fares.
  I come from North Dakota, which is not a heavily populated partof the 
country. All of us have understood, I suppose, from our own unique 
perspective what has happened with respect to airlines under 
deregulation. I can tell you what has happened to airlines under 
deregulation for some parts of the country. If you live in Chicago and 
fly to Los Angeles, it has been a wonderful, wonderful thing. You have 
multiple opportunities to call a number of carriers. You find robust 
competition and low prices.
  If you live, however, in a smaller community, in a rural State, you 
call the airline and find out that you are paying more. I can get on an 
airplane and fly from here to London and it costs less than it costs to 
fly from here to Bismarck, ND. Let me say that again so people 
understand.
  I can fly from here to London to see Big Ben for less money than it 
costs me to fly from here to see Salem Sue the Cow, the biggest cow in 
the world sitting on a hill near New Salem, ND, 30 miles from Bismarck 
airport.
  Why should it cost me less to fly from here to London than from here 
to Bismarck? Because that is the way deregulation has worked. If you 
happen to live in areas where there are a lot of folks, you get a heck 
of a deal on airline fares, plenty of opportunities for different 
carriers and different flights and lower prices. If you live in a rural 
area, you are going to have less opportunity, fewer carriers, less 
competition, and higher prices.
  I am going to bring some charts to the floor one of these days that 
will entertain the Senator from New Jersey, I hope. They will make a 
simple point about who pays what for airline travel in this country. 
The fact is, people who live in rural areas pay through the nose, and 
the folks who happen to live in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles get a 
wonderful deal from airline deregulation.
  I want a definitive study done that demonstrates that is the case. I 
know it is the case, and most folks who live where I do know it is the 
case. I would like to see a DOT study done, and when that is done, I 
would like to talk with the folks in the Senate and the House about 
deregulation and what ought to be done to address some of these issues.
  I want to mention one additional thing to the Senator from New 
Jersey, who is obviously now intently listening to this discussion. If 
you try in today's circumstance to start a new regional airline carrier 
to provide jet service in Maine or North Dakota or some State with a 
more rural population, what will happen is, you are going to get 
squashed like a little bug. In the old days, if you had a regional jet 
carrier, the major carriers were required to do code-sharing and offer 
joint fares. These days, of course, there is no such requirement. So a 
new jet carrier service begins to provide regional carrier service, and 
quickly finds the service they can provide is from one city to another 
and that is their only opportunity, because no big carrier is going to 
join with them for joint fares and code-sharing.
  So very soon they will discover, for example, if you are providing 
service from Bismarck, ND, to Denver, which happens to be the case with 
the new regional jet carrier, you cannot if you are traveling from 
Bismarck to Los Angeles. The most direct route would be a jet from 
Bismarck to Denver and then on another jet from Denver to Los Angeles. 
You cannot do that, because the major carrier flying from Denver to Los 
Angeles says, ``We don't offer joints fares. That is our judgment. We 
just don't do it.''
  What is the result of deregulation policy, a policy which would not 
have existed 20 or 30 years ago? We would not have allowed that to 
happen. What is the result? The result is, we will not see the 
emergence of robust, energetic, new jet service from regional carriers 
in this country until we decide to change the rules or maybe change the 
law and decide that deregulation must be adjusted in those certain 
circumstances.
  The first step is to demonstrate with a definitive study about who 
gets the benefits and who bears the cost of airline deregulation, and 
then to take that study and use it to try to find some sensible 
solutions to it.
  So I intend to offer an amendment that simply requires such a study. 
I hope that it will be acceptable to the Senators who are managing this 
legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to respond to our distinguished 
colleague from North Dakota.
  First of all, I was struck by a speech we heard the other day, one of 
the most illuminating and interesting speeches on the floor when the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, stood up and 
talked about his 14,000th vote, about two votes that he regretted. One 
of major magnitude was a vote that he made against the civil rights 
legislation in 1964. And he is a man whose knowledge is unchallengeable 
here. And the other was when he voted for airline deregulation.
  Frankly, if I was here at the time, I would not have voted to 
deregulate, and I am very interested in all forms of transportation, 
particularly aviation. In a State like New Jersey, a critical part of 
our structure, our culture, our economy is the airport we have at 
Newark.
  That does not mean that we have cheap fares, I say to my friend from 
North Dakota. As a matter of fact, if you want to fly from New Jersey 
to Washington, you often will pay more than you might to fly to Chicago 
or some further place. So we wound up with higher fares and worse 
service. At the same time airlines reduced their costs because they do 
not pay the wages they used to pay, and they do not have the services 
available that they used to. Now everybody crowds their luggage onto 
the airplanes, and if you ever traveled with a bunch of high school 
students and get hit in the head with backpacks as they walk up the 
aisle like a ball down bowling alley, you realize that is not something 
you are really fond of. I would not be surprised if somebody tried to 
bring a pet elephant or a donkey. But the crowding 

[[Page S12054]]
that you get on airplanes is almost insufferable.
  I share the Senator's interests in having a study done. But, I think 
a study ought to be committed that would be a little more 
comprehensive. It should be the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee 
and have a full review of what happened with airfares and with service. 
And some of the more rural places are just not going to get a lot of 
jet service because of the fact that it is so expensive to offer. But I 
believe that service to communities is an essential part of their 
survival. We had this debate over essential air service. For a lot of 
communities, if you get rid of the airline availability, you almost 
destroy the economic well-being of those communities. So I would like 
to share with the Senator from North Dakota the request for getting a 
study done. But I hope that we can do it with another committee, a 
committee that has authorizing jurisdiction and so forth. I will defer 
to my chairman here to see what his views are.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I would associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from New Jersey in responding to the Senator 
from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2328

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I would like to now respond to the 
amendment offered by the Senators from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter and 
Mr. Santorum.
  Madam President, first of all, I want to commend the Senators from 
Pennsylvania for the careful crafting of an amendment in which they 
took full responsibility to have reductions to offset the increase they 
are seeking for the transit operating fund. I wish that I could accept 
their amendment because I know they speak not only for their State of 
Pennsylvania, but for all States that have a system which depends so 
much an transit operating aid. I have one in my own State of Oregon, in 
the city of Portland.
  Madam President, I have to say, in looking at the total picture as to 
what is happening to this fund, not only this year but in the previous 
year, 1995, it would be, in my view, offering less than full support, 
it would be raising false hope that we somehow are going to reverse the 
trend.
  In 1995, that fund was reduced by 12 percent. In 1996, the President 
reduced it from $710 million down to $500 million. He suggested an 
across-the-board reduction which would turn out to be about a 30-
percent reduction in transit operating aid to all systems. The House 
reduced it down to $400 million, which translates into about a 44-
percent reduction across the board to all systems, large and small. The 
Senate suggested the same figure of $400 million that the House did. 
But we try to draw a distinction between small and large operations.
  In small operations, on the average, their budget is supported by 
transit operational aid from 12 to 20 percent in their total budget. 
You take a large operation and, on the average, it is 4 percent of 
their total budget, supported by transit aid. So we took a figure of 
200,000 population and said that under 200,000, it would be reduced by 
20 percent. The lowest percentage of reduction between the President's 
suggested 30 and the House's suggested 44. We increased the reduction, 
of course, to offset that 20 percent consideration to the small 
operations by increasing the larger ones up to a 48-percent reduction.
  Let me also add that the budget resolution we passed in this body has 
made very clear that we are phasing out that fund entirely over the 
life of the budget resolution. So when you look at all of those trend 
lines as it relates specifically to that particular account we are 
dealing with in this amendment, as much as I would like to be helpful 
and accommodate Pennsylvania and all the others that would be involved 
and affected, I really feel that I cannot do so.
  Let me also say that all of those deductions that were taken in this 
amendment identified as offsets, those accounts have already taken 
heavy reductions in light of the total budget caps that we are working 
on. And I again say, almost apologetically, but within the context of 
my duty and responsibility to keep this appropriation bill and all 12 
other appropriation bills within the caps, and to indicate a strong 
determination moving toward a balanced budget by the year 2002, we just 
have to come to grips with the fact that we have too little money for 
the demands and needs and for the justified requirements that are being 
asked here.
  So I do not want to stop the discussion necessarily, but I will soon 
move to table the Specter-Santorum amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator would allow me, I wanted to offer some 
documents.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 25 to me from James 
J. Lutz, from the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transit 
Authorities be printed in the Record, together with a survey of losses 
to cities in Pennsylvania, together with a document showing the offsets 
needed to increase mass transit.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Pennsylvania Association of Municipal Transportation 
           Authorities,
                                    Harrisburg, PA, July 25, 1995.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: The Pennsylvania Association of 
     Municipal Transportation Authorities (PAMTA) urges your 
     support to fund the federal transit program including 
     operating assistance at the highest possible levels.
       The funding levels included in the FY 1996 House 
     Appropriations Bill includes a 43.7% reduction in urban area 
     operating assistance and a 19.4% reduction in rural 
     transportation funding amount other reductions.
       Pennsylvania's transit systems rely heavily on the federal 
     program for both capital and operating needs. A recent survey 
     of a cross section of medium and small urban systems and 
     rural systems in Pennsylvania shows that fares would have to 
     be increased 64% to make up for the operating assistance 
     reductions in the House bill. Fare increases of this level 
     would likely result in unprecedented losses in ridership 
     forcing fares to go even higher. As an alternative to solving 
     the problem through fare increases, these same systems would 
     have to eliminate 26% of their services.
       The public transit systems of Pennsylvania have a proud 
     tradition of providing some of the most efficient services in 
     the nation and a proud tradition of quality services to the 
     citizens of the Commonwealth. Affordable fares and reasonable 
     levels of service cannot be sustained to continue that proud 
     tradition with the funding levels included in the House bill 
     (H.R. 2002). For that reason, PAMTA urges your support for a 
     Senate Appropriations bill that improves the levels of 
     funding included in the House bill and provides increased 
     operating assistance and greater flexibility to use formula 
     funds for operating needs.
       Thank you for continued support. Please contact me at (717) 
     397-5613 if you have questions or require additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,

                                                James J. Lutz,

                                                Vice President for
                                              Legislative Affairs.
       Enclosure.

                                    PAMTA SURVEY, AUGUST 1995--EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 1996 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS BILL                                   
                                                            [Actions required to cover loss]                                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Or service                                   
                   Systems                      Operating loss    Fare increases   (Current--required)   reductions (in     Customer loss    Population 
                                                                   (in percent)                             percent)                           group1   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allentown (LANTA)............................        $1,238,000                48       ($1.25-$1.85)                 20           700,000            M 
Altoona (AMTRAN).............................           144,746                73          (.73-1.00)                 20            70,000            S 
Harrisburg (CAT).............................           483,000                32         (1.10-1.45)              (\2\)           320,000            M 
Indiana (ICTA)...............................            28,260                80         (1.00-1.80)                 25             (\2\)            R 
Lancaster (RRTA).............................           502,810                48         (1.05-1.55)                 16           250,000            S 
Monesson (MMVTA).............................           138,233                51         (1.95-2.95)                 50            54,000            L 
Reading (BARTA)..............................           487,145                32         (1.10-1.35)                 15           400,000            S 
Scranton (COLTS).............................           352,879                25      \3\(1.00-1.25)              \3\20           425,000            M 
State College (CATA).........................            66,927                18          (.85-1.00)                  2             (\2\)            S 
Wilkes-Barre (LCTA)..........................           409,000               104         (1.10-2.25)                 39           680,000            M 
                                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------             

[[Page S12055]]
                                                                                                                                                        
    Averages.................................           385,100              51.1  ...................                23           362,375  ............
Pittsburgh--$3.75 million                                                                                                                               
Philadelphia--$11.5 million                                                                                                                             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Large--Over 1 million; Medium--200,000-1 Million; Small--50,000-200,000; Rural--Under 50,000.                                                        
\2\Estimate not available.                                                                                                                              
\3\Fare increases and service combined.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        
Note.--PAT and SEPTA have not determined the specific actions that would be taken to make up for the significant loss of Federal operating funds        
  included in the Senate Appropriations Bill.                                                                                                           


   Offsets Needed to Increase Mass Transit (Operating) by $40 Million

       To increase mass transit operating assistance by $40 
     million ($24 million in outlays), the following offsets are 
     possible:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposed reductions 
                                                  ----------------------
           Account               House    Senate     (Budget            
                                                   authority)  (Outlays)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA Rental Payments (Covers).     130.8     139.6      -5          -5   
FAA Research & Development...     143       215.9     -10          -6   
FAA Facilities and Equipment--                                          
 (Rescission of unobligated                                             
 balances from prior years)..  \1\(60)   \1\(70)   \1\(16)          4   
DOT Working Capital Fund.....      92.2      99.4      -5.0        -3   
Federal Transit                                                         
 Administration--Administrati                                           
 ve Expenses.................      39.2      42        -2.74       -2.47
Secretary of Transportation--                                           
 Salaries and Expenses.......      55.0      56.5      -1.1        -1   
Transportation Planning                                                 
 Research and Development....       3.3       9.7      -3.37       -2.53
                              ------------------------------------------
      Totals.................  ........  ........      43.2        24   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Rescission.                                                          

  Mr. SPECTER. By final comment, this increase in operating mass 
transit is necessary for the working poor, disabled, and the elderly.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to table.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). 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 amendment No. 2328.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 379 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--30

     Abraham
     Biden
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Mack
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2328) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
body, Mr. President, we are attempting at this time--the manager, 
Senator Lautenberg, and myself--to ascertain what amendments are being 
expected for the Transportation appropriations bill. I am told by the 
majority leader that we will expect to finish this appropriations bill 
tonight.
  If we can now get the cooperation of our colleagues to indicate if 
they are expecting to offer an amendment, and if they are expecting to 
ask for a rollcall on such amendment, at this point in time I have five 
amendments that may be offered on our side of the aisle. Senator Roth 
has two amendments listed.
  I would estimate we may have rollcall votes tonight on completing 
some of these amendments. Senator Lautenberg and I have indicated that 
we want to move on those which we do not expect to have rollcall votes 
and take up time to complete those amendments. I am not saying there is 
a window because I do not have authority to establish the window. But, 
nevertheless, we will try to complete those first for which we do not 
expect and do not ask for a rollcall vote.
  We are making inquiry of the majority leader if he could consider 
stacking votes for tomorrow, and we could offer a number of amendments 
yet to be offered and complete those amendments tonight. We do not have 
that information at this point.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that Senator Pressler, Senator Roth, 
Senator Byrd, and Senator Chafee might be willing to offer amendments 
now.
  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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
time agreement of 20 minutes equally divided in consideration of the 
Harkin amendment, equally divided between Senator Harkin and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection----
  Mr. PRYOR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the 
distinguished chairman please repeat the request.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Senator Harkin is going to offer an amendment now, and 
he said he would be willing to enter into a time agreement of 20 
minutes equally divided.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have no problems with that, and I do 
thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2329

 (Purpose: To amend the Railway Labor Act regarding overseas domiciles 
                    regarding airline flight crews)

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

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2329.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 an appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 
     181) is amended by adding at 

[[Page S12056]]
     the end the following: ``As used in this title, the term `foreign 
     commerce' includes flight operations (excluding ground 
     operations performed by persons other than flight crew 
     members) conducted in whole or in part outside the United 
     States (as defined by section 40102(a)(41) of title 49, 
     United States Code) by an air carrier (as defined by section 
     40102(a)(2) of such title).''.


                                employee

       Section 202 of such Act (45 U.S.C. 182) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following ``As used in this title, the 
     term `employee' also includes flight crew members employed by 
     an air carrier (as defined by section 40102(a)(2) of title 
     49, United States Code) while such flight crew members 
     perform work in whole or in part outside the United States 
     (as defined by section 40102(a)(41) of such title).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this provision is intended to clarify the intent of 
Congress that title II of the Railway Labor Act, which governs airline 
labor/management relations, applies to flight crews employed by U.S. 
air carriers engaged in international operations.
  In 1993, this same provision was included in the transportation bill 
for fiscal year 1994 and passed by the Senate. The House bill contained 
no provision on the subject. The Senate receded to the House but 
included the following language in the conference report:

       The conferees urge the authorizing committees with proper 
     jurisdiction to report legislation during fiscal year 1994 
     clarifying that the Railway Labor Act extends to flight crew 
     personnel employed by U.S. air carriers who are domiciled 
     overseas and covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

  No action was taken in response to the conferees in 1994 other than 
the House committee formerly known as the Public Works and 
Transportation Committee held a hearing in October 1994. The Senate 
Labor and Human Resources Committee has taken no action, nor do I know 
of any plans to consider this provision in the future.
  I believe this is important to make certain that Congress intends 
that the basic statute which governs collective bargaining involving 
U.S. airline flight crews, namely the Railway Labor Act, applies 
equally to those flight personnel who are engaged in international as 
well as domestic flying. This provision would ensure that the long-
established principle of maritime laws that applies to workers on board 
U.S. flagships, namely that the law follows the flag of the vessel, is 
also applied to those flight crew members who work aboard U.S. flag air 
carriers when operating in and out of foreign ports.
  As our U.S. airlines expand their operations internationally, it is 
necessary, in my view, in the interest of uninterrupted air service and 
the stability of collective bargaining relationships, that the flight 
crews who are engaged in these international operations have the 
protection of U.S. law as it relates to their conditions of employment 
to the same extent as their counterparts in domestic operations.
  Mr. President, let me very clearly state what this does not apply to. 
This does not apply to ground crew personnel. There was some mistake on 
that. It applies only to flight crews.
  In over 50 years of international aviation, there has not been a 
single case of a foreign government attempting to assert jurisdiction 
over U.S. airline flight crews.
  Let me state that again. In over 50 years, not one foreign government 
has attempted to assert jurisdiction over U.S. airline flight crews, 
nor has the United States ever attempted to assert jurisdiction over 
flight crews of foreign airlines transiting through the United States 
to other foreign points such as Canada, Mexico, or South America. 
Bilateral aviation treaties do not reference flight crews, only ground 
employees. The amendment does not apply to ground employees, only to 
flight crews. That is the pilots and the flight attendants.
  Furthermore, if there is a remote chance that a foreign country 
desired to exercise some authority that could easily be negotiated by 
the U.S. pilots or the flight attendants' union and the airline for 
whom they work.
  Again, this amendment tracks the same policy as maritime law for 
maritime employees. The law follows the flag of the vessel. There is 
absolutely no conflict-of-laws problem with this. It is simply to 
clarify the intent of the Railway Labor Act.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be deducted equally from each 
side.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if there is no opposition and no one wants 
to speak, in the interest of time I would be willing to yield back my 
time--if no one else wants to speak.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time 
divided equally----
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. I withhold that.
  Mr. PRYOR. If the distinguished Senator would please withhold that, I 
have a question I wish to propose to the distinguished Senator, my good 
friend from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa controls the time.
  Does the Senator from Iowa wish to yield time to the Senator from 
Arkansas?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 4 minutes and 45 
seconds. The Senator from Oregon has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. If he needs a couple more minutes, I will give it to him.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair and the distinguished chairman, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a very, very complex and far-
reaching amendment. It has just come to our attention it was going to 
be offered just a very few moments ago. This amendment is going to be 
one that basically, to the best of my understanding after a cursory 
look, is going to affect and impinge upon 28 commercial treaties that 
airlines now have with respect to countries.
  Mr. President, further it is my understanding that in the Senate--
perhaps in the House, I do not even know this--there has never been a 
hearing on the particular issue that our friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, is bringing before the Senate tonight. We are about, 
if this amendment passes, to extend our own labor laws to other foreign 
countries. And I do not know how we would react if other countries 
tried to extend their labor laws to this country.
  So, Mr. President, I think the better part of discretion, I say 
respectfully, is to turn down this amendment at this moment and to try 
to see if we cannot work something out eventually. In September when we 
come back, we will have time to study this matter more thoroughly. And 
I urge, Mr. President, the defeat of the amendment offered by my good 
friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in response.
  Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arkansas, if I could have his 
attention. I listened to his comments. Mr. President, it is my 
understanding, from having worked with this over 3 years now on these 
commercial treaties, that these treaties only impact ground crews. My 
amendment does not touch ground crews; only flight crews, not ground 
crews. Those commercial treaties only involve ground crews. My 
amendment does not even touch that.
  Secondly, in response to your assertion that maybe this extends our 
labor laws to foreign countries, no, it does not. It does the same 
thing as our maritime law. If one of our ships is in a foreign port, 
for example, our maritime laws cover the people on that ship, not the 
laws of the foreign country.
  This is well recognized in international law and always has been. As 
I said in my opening comments, in the 50 years of international 
aviation, there has not been a single case of a foreign government 
attempting to assert jurisdiction over U.S. flight crews, nor have we 
tried to assert jurisdiction over foreign flight crews.
  All this amendment says is: If you are a pilot or flight attendant 
and you work for a U.S. airline and you are based in Tokyo or someplace 
like that, if you are a part of that bargaining 

[[Page S12057]]
unit with that airline, then you come under the same laws as your 
counterparts flying out of Los Angeles or Chicago or New York. If you 
are not a part of the bargaining unit, of course, then it does not 
apply to you. It applies only if you are part of that bargaining unit 
covered by the Railway Labor Act.
  Mr. PRYOR. If I might ask my friend a question, has this been looked 
at and have hearings been held in the Labor Committee?
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said earlier, the only hearing that was held was 
held by the House Public Works Committee in October of 1994.
  Mr. PRYOR. Well, I do not have any additional time, but I really hope 
we could reconsider this issue at a later time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes twenty one seconds.
  The Senator from Oregon has 8 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is reserved.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I have how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes twenty one seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I 
want to support the Harkin amendment. This amendment has been passed by 
the Senate in the past. Its provision was included in the original 
subcommittee bill because the language had been cleared by the majority 
and the minority leadership of the Labor, Health and Human Resources 
Committee.
  There was an objection raised. An objection was raised by other 
Senators on the provision. And then it was dropped by the full 
committee. So, Mr. President, simply, this provision provides for 
fairness for pilots that fly for U.S. carriers but does so between 
points that are outside the United States. The amendment extends the 
same collective bargaining rights that apply to the pilots that fly for 
U.S. carriers between domestic and foreign airports to pilots that fly 
for U.S. carriers from point to point outside the United States. They 
ought to be included. I support the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute 5 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 8 minutes 14 
seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, when the 
discussion has been exhausted, I will move to table the Harkin 
amendment.
  I think the Senator from Iowa realizes very clearly that it was 
included in the subcommittee chairman's mark. And the full committee 
took action to strike it following communications from the authorizers 
on that issue. This had been put in the bill 2 years ago, as I recall, 
and then under a threatened veto by President Bush, it was withdrawn. 
So, consequently, I think it is one of those matters that we ought to 
not try to incorporate in the bill at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will use the remainder of my time. I yield myself the 
remainder of my time.
  I just say that I do not know why this is such a problem. It only 
clarifies the intent of the Railway Labor Act and only covers flight 
crews and only covers those flight crews that are part of the 
bargaining unit in foreign ports. It does not cover ground crews. It 
does not disturb the treaties. It passed the Senate 2 years ago. There 
was not any objection raised at the time. Regarding President Bush, if 
he objected to it, it was probably part of eight items in a bill that 
President Bush at that time said he would veto.
  But it seems to me now is the time to go ahead and move on on this 
issue and put it behind us and clarify the intent of the Railway Labor 
Act. That is all we are trying to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa is expired.
  The Senator from Oregon had 7 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Does anyone wish to be heard on this?
  If not, Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the Harkin amendment, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). 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 yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL when his name was called. Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 380 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Coverdell
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Kerrey
     Mack
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2329) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bingaman be added as a cosponsor to the Domenici amendment regarding 
the Petroglyph National Monument during the consideration of the 
Interior bill and as adopted by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to 
H.R. 2002 and that they be subject to relevant second degrees; that all 
amendments must be offered and debated tonight; and that any votes 
ordered with respect to these amendments be stacked to occur at 9:15 
a.m. Thursday morning, with 4 minutes for debate to be equally divided 
between each succeeding rollcall vote, and all votes in the stacked 
sequence after the first vote to be limited to 10 minutes each, and any 
vote after the third vote, that there may be 10 minutes for debate.
  I have a list of such amendments that have been given to the managers 
on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  
[[Page S12058]]

  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, may I ask my friend and 
colleague, I was trying to get to my friend the last 2 or 3 hours, but 
for some unexplained reason there has been such a crowd down there I 
was unable to break through.
  I have an amendment that has been cleared, I believe, on all sides 
that I have not had a chance to talk to the Senator about. I think it 
will be agreed to by voice vote, but I will agree to just put my name 
down for an amendment, 10 minutes a side.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator would yield, I have listed here an Exon 
amendment relating to the Rail Institute. Is that the amendment? One 
million for the Rail Institute?
  Mr. EXON. That is right. I thank you.
  I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I inquire if a Bingaman amendment 
is reserved?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have a Bingaman amendment relating to DOT on energy 
savings.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, are there 
one or two amendments for me?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have two amendments for the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object, am I on the list?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I have two amendments for the Senator from Delaware, 
[Mr. Roth].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:
     Possible Amendments to H.R. 2002 Transportation Appropriations

       Bumpers: essential air service; essential air service.
       Dorgan: FAA study on airfares.
       Ford: relevant.
       Levin: relevant.
       Simon: FAA.
       Lautenberg: relevant.
       Byrd: relevant.
       Boxer: relevant.
       Daschle: essential air service.
       Burns: ICC; relevant.
       Roth: strike committee amendment on FAA personnel reform; 
     strike committee amendment on FAA procurement reform.
       Jeffords: relevant.
       Pressler: Sense of the Senate regarding the Government of 
     Japan's violations against United States/Japan bilateral 
     aviation agreements.
       Warner: relevant.
       Harkin: airline labor protection.
       Chafee: technical amendment on the committee's section 1003 
     flexibility provisions.
       Gregg: essential air service.
       Coverdell: Georgia bridge.


                          managers' amendment

       Technical: page 71, line 9, strike ``(b)'' insert.
       Bingaman: on DOT energy savings.
       Abraham: striking 3 advisory committees.
       Inouye: striking in Hawaii under EAS Program.
       Feinstein: on Orange County Toll Authority.
       Exon: out of available funds $1 million for rail 
     institution.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we do have the 
agreement. All amendments must be debated tonight. The votes will start 
at 9:15 tomorrow morning. The first votes, if they are ordered, will 
occur at 9:15. Votes after that will be 10 minutes each. There will be 
4 minutes between the stacked votes.
  As I understand, after the third vote you can have up to 10 minutes, 
which I trust you would not use. We are on automatic pilot. As soon as 
everybody finishes making speeches, we can go home for the recess.
  Mr. LEAHY. Did I understand the distinguished majority leader to say 
after the transportation bill is over?
  Mr. DOLE. After two more.


                           Amendment No. 2330

 (Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which 
                funds are made available under this Act)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2330.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
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 the following:

     SEC.   . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--The head of each 
     agency for which funds are made available under this Act 
     shall take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal 
     year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995 
     levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the 
     agency.
       (b) Use of cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of 
     cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall 
     remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal 
     year 1997, without further authorization or appropriation, as 
     follows:
       (1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount 
     shall remain available for the implementation of additional 
     energy conservation measures and for water conservation 
     measures at such facilities used by the agency as are 
     designated by the head of the agency.
       (2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall 
     remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as 
     are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with 
     applicable law.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the head 
     of each agency described in subsection (a) shall submit a 
     report to Congress specifying the results of the actions 
     taken under subsection (a) and providing any recommendations 
     concerning how to further reduce energy costs and energy 
     consumption in the future.
       (2) Contents.--Each report shall--
       (A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used 
     by the agency;
       (B) identify the reductions achieved; and
       (C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward 
amendment, and I do not believe it is controversial. It calls for the 
head of each agency for which funds are made available under the act to 
take action to try and reduce by 5 percent the energy costs of the 
facilities used by that agency in the next fiscal year.
  It is an amendment that is essentially identical to the amendment 
that we have offered to each of the appropriations bills this year.
  I do not believe there is any objection to it on either the 
Republican or Democratic side. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The amendment is clear on this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is also clear on this side. We commend the Senator 
from New Mexico for offering it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2330) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM.
   Mr. President, although the Bingaman amendment was accepted by voice 
vote, I would like to be recorded in opposition to the amendment. I 
believe that this amendment could open a large loophole for the 
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to continue making grants to 
individuals that raise the ire of the American public.

  The appropriations bill includes language from the authorization bill 
reported by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources which eliminates 
all direct NEA grants to individuals except literature fellowships. 
This amendment would add two more exceptions for awards honoring those 
who have excelled in American art forms and jazz music.
  The issue of NEA grants to individuals has resurfaced as recent 
controversies have drawn new attention to the NEA's practice of 
awarding grants to individuals whose ``art'' offends so many of us. 
While the Labor Committee bill's increased oversight of the NEA's 
grant-making process and Chairman Alexander's administrative changes 
will be of some help in restoring public confidence in the Endowment, I 
believe that the time has come 

[[Page S12059]]
to a draw the line on grants to individuals. Both the authorization and 
appropriations legislation provide that the only individuals eligible 
for direct NEA grants would be those applying for literature 
fellowships. I believe that the literature fellowships are the only 
worthwhile exception. Furthermore, during consideration of the 
authorization bill the Labor Committee defeated, by a vote of 7 to 9, 
an amendment to exempt 7 additional categories of grants to 
individuals.
  While the preservation of Heritage Fellows and Jazz Masters grants 
would weaken the Labor Committee's strong stance on this issue, I admit 
that the grants the Senator from New Mexico seeks to protect are not 
necessarily part of the problem I have cited. I can understand the 
Senator's interest in maintaining these programs, which honor artists 
and musicians for their past achievements. However, I wonder why these 
awards need to provide grants at all. The cash awarded is a ``thanks 
for a job well done,'' rather than a subsidy for an artist's first 
works. I would think that being honored by the NEA for past 
achievements would be sufficient, and would not require a cash payment. 
If the NEA had taken that route, there would be no need for this 
amendment.
                           Amendment No. 2331

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study 
                             of air fares)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Dorgan, for 
     himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Conrad proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2331.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 the following new section:

     SEC.   . STUDY OF AIR FARES.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Adjusted air fare.--The term ``adjusted air fare'' 
     means an actual air fare that is adjusted for distance 
     traveled by a passenger.
       (2) Air carrier.--The term--
       (A) ``air carrier'' has the same meaning as in section 
     40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) the terms ``regional commuter air carrier'', and 
     ``major air carrier'' shall have the meanings provided those 
     terms by the Secretary.
       (3) Airport.--The term ``airport'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 40102(9) of title 49, United States Code.
       (4) Commercial air carrier.--The term ``commercial air 
     carrier'' means an air carrier that provides air 
     transportation for commercial purposes (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       (5) Hub airport.--The term ``hub airport'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 41731(a)(2) of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (6) Large hub airport.--The term ``large hub airport''--
       (A) shall have the meaning provided that term by the 
     Secretary; and
       (B) does not include a small hub airport (as such term is 
     defined in section 41731(a)(5) of title 49, United States 
     Code).
       (7) Nonhub airport.--The term ``nonhub airport'' has the 
     same meaning as in section 41731(a)(4) of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (b) Study of Air Fares.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to--
       (A) compare air fares paid (calculated as both actual and 
     adjusted air fares) for air transportation on flights 
     conducted by commercial air carriers--
       (i) between--
       (I) nonhub airports located in small communities; and
       (II) large hub airports; and
       (ii) between large hub airports; and
       (B) analyze--
       (i) the extent to which passenger service that is provided 
     from nonhub airports is provided on--
       (I) regional commuter commercial air carriers; or
       (II) major air carriers;
       (ii) the type of aircraft employed in providing passenger 
     service at nonhub airports; and
       (iii) whether there is competition among commercial air 
     carriers with respect to the provision of air service to 
     passengers from nonhub airports.
       (2) Findings.--The Secretary shall include in the study 
     conducted under this subsection findings made by the 
     Secretary concerning--
       (A) whether passengers who use commercial air carriers to 
     and from rural areas (as defined by the Secretary) pay a 
     disproportionately greater price for that transportation than 
     do passengers who use commercial air carriers between urban 
     areas (as defined by the Secretary);
       (B) the nature of competition, if any in rural markets (as 
     defined by the Secretary) for commercial air carriers;
       (C) whether a relationship exists between higher air fares 
     and competition among commercial air carriers for passengers 
     travelling on jet aircraft from small communities (as defined 
     by the Secretary) and, if such relationship exists, the 
     nature of that relationship;
       (D) the number of small communities that have lost air 
     service as a result of the deregulation of commercial air 
     carriers with respect to air fares;
       (E) the number of small communities served by airports with 
     respect to which, after the date on which the deregulation 
     referred to in subparagraph (D) occurred, jet air service was 
     replaced by turbo prop air service; and
       (F) with respect to the replacement in service referred to 
     in subparagraph (E), any corresponding decreases in available 
     seat capacity for consumers at the airports referred to in 
     that subparagraph.
       (c) Report.--Upon completion of the study conducted under 
     subsection (b), but not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on 
     the study and the findings of the Secretary to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment, on behalf of Senator 
Dorgan, is requesting we set up a study on the problems relating to 
essential air services that many States are confronting today because 
of the diminishing resources available for that program. It has been 
cleared on this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared. It asks for 
a study that seems quite appropriate to see what has happened with 
fares in less populated areas.
  This side accepts it.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Dorgan 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2331) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. 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. 2332

 (Purpose: To remove the State of Hawaii from an exclusion relating to 
                       payments to air carriers)

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2332.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 4, line 14, strike ``and Hawaii''.

  Mr. HATFIELD. This amendment strikes Hawaii from the listing of 
essential air services. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We support the amendment on this side as well, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Inouye 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2332) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2333

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical amendment 
that has been cleared on both sides and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2333.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 bill page 71, line 9, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(j)''.

 
[[Page S12060]]

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2333) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2334

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Bumpers, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2334.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 4, line 21, insert after ``* * * airport,'' 
     ``except for any such community in which is located an 
     airline maintenance facility performing required Federal 
     Aviation Regulation heavy engine heavy structural airframe 
     maintenance work in accordance with Part 135.411(a)(2).''

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that modifies 
language relating to the essential air services offered by the Senator 
from Arkansas. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is cleared on this side, Mr. President. I urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2334) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. EXON. 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. 2335

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Institute of Railroad Safety)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2335.

  Mr. EXON. 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 add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . THE RAILROAD SAFETY INSTITUTE.

       Of the money appropriated to the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation for Transportation Planning, Research and 
     Development, $1 million shall be made available to establish 
     and operate the Institute for Railroad Safety as authorized 
     by the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I have offered it, and I would like to have the comments of the 
two managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The amendment (No. 2335) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. PRESSLER. 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. 2336

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the action taken by 
 the Government of Japan against United States air cargo and passenger 
   carriers represents a clear violation of the United States/Japan 
  bilateral aviation agreement that is having severe repercussions on 
 United States air carriers and, in general, customers of these United 
                          States air carriers)

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

       The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Pressler), for himself, 
     Mr. Stevens, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Cochran, 
     Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. Pell, Mr. Kerry, and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2336.

  Mr. PRESSLER. 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 the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING UNITED STATES/JAPAN 
                   AVIATION DISPUTE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Governments of the United States and Japan entered 
     into a bilateral aviation agreement in 1952 that has been 
     modified periodically to reflect changes in the aviation 
     relationship between the two countries;
       (2) in 1994 the total revenue value of passenger and 
     freight traffic for United States air carriers between the 
     United States and Japan was approximately $6 billion;
       (3) the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement 
     guarantees three U.S. carriers ``beyond rights'' that 
     authorize them to fly into Japan, take on additional 
     passengers and cargo, and then fly to another country;
       (4) the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement 
     requires that, within 45 days of filing a notice with the 
     Government of Japan, the Government of Japan must authorize 
     United States air carriers to serve routes guaranteed by 
     their ``beyond rights'';
       (5) United States air carriers have made substantial 
     economic investment in reliance upon the expectation their 
     rights under the United States/Japan bilateral aviation 
     agreement would be honored by the Government of Japan;
       (6) the Government of Japan has violated the United States/
     Japan bilateral aviation agreement by preventing United 
     States air carriers from serving routes clearly authorized by 
     their ``beyond rights''; and
       (7) the refusal by the Government of Japan to respect the 
     terms of the United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement 
     is having severe repercussions on United States air carriers 
     and, in general, customers of these United States air 
     carriers.
       (b) Action Requested.--The Congress--
       (1) calls upon the Government of Japan to honor and abide 
     by the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral aviation 
     agreement and immediately authorize United States air cargo 
     and passenger carriers which have pending route requests 
     relating to their ``beyond rights'' to immediately commence 
     service on the requested routes;
       (2) calls upon the President of the United States to 
     identify strong and appropriate forms of countermeasures that 
     could be taken against the Government of Japan for its 
     egregious violation of the United States/Japan bilateral 
     aviation agreement; and
       (3) calls upon the President of the United States to 
     promptly impose against the Government of Japan whatever 
     countermeasures are necessary and appropriate to ensure the 
     Government of Japan abides by the terms of the United States/
     Japan bilateral aviation agreement.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to a 
resolution I introduced several weeks ago. It is simple and 
straightforward. It calls on the Government of Japan to abide by the 
terms of the United States/Japan aviation agreement.
  This amendment has a number of cosponsors. It has been floating 
around for some time while we negotiated with the Japanese so we tried 
to contact all cosponsors to reconfirm their support. We were unable to 
contact all of the cosponsors to notify them of this amendment so we 
have taken some of the cosponsors' names off of it. At this time, the 
amendment is for myself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mr. Pell, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Kerry, and 
Mr. Lautenberg.
  Mr. President, Let me say that for some time we have had an aviation 
dispute with Japan regarding the refusal of Japan to respect the right 
of several of our carriers to fly beyond Japan to countries throughout 
Asia. Several of our carriers--United Airlines, Federal Express, and 
Northwest Airlines--are guaranteed this right by the United 

[[Page S12061]]
States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. Nonetheless, the Government 
of Japan refuses to recognize our carriers' right to initiate new 
service beyond Japan.
  On June 20, the Government of Japan agreed to honor the United State/
Japan bilateral aviation agreement with respect to the cargo dispute. 
This favorable development was due in large part to the leadership of 
Fred Smith, the chairman of Federal Express. Mr. Smith made the point, 
and I agree with him, that it is time that we get tough with the 
Japanese in terms of enforcing our bilateral aviation agreement.
  Let me add that I think our Secretary of Transportation, Secretary 
Pena, has done a good job in this and other international aviation 
matters. He has done the best job he can despite tremendous political 
pressure to put the interests of individual carriers before the 
interests of our country.
  Aviation relations between the United States and Japan are an 
important trade issue. The Japanese recognize the significant and 
growing air service market in the Pacific rim and they want to control 
all the air passenger service beyond Tokyo into China, Malaysia, 
Indonesia, and so forth. They also have a system of trying to control 
most of the air cargo transportation beyond Tokyo. The travel distances 
are so great on transpacific routes between the United States and Japan 
that it very difficult for our carriers to overfly Japan. The Japanese 
know this and they are trying through protectionist tactics to prevent 
our carriers from serving the rapidly expanding Asian market.
  Resolution of our cargo dispute several weeks ago was welcome news. 
Unfortunately, as I said at the time, the agreement on cargo issues did 
not put our aviation dispute with Japan over ``beyond rights'' 
completely behind us. The passenger carrier portion of the United 
States/Japan aviation dispute remains unresolved.
  The Government of Japan continues to deny United Airlines the right 
to fly between Osaka and Seoul, Korea. As our Department of 
Transportation has said, this route is clearly authorized by the United 
States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement. United Airlines has 
patiently waited while United States negotiators focused on the cargo 
dispute. Now, it is imperative that the United States demand the 
Government of Japan honor the rights of our passenger carriers as well.
  The passenger carrier issue must be redressed promptly. By failing to 
do so, we are sending the wrong message to countries around the world. 
Our silence on the passenger carrier dispute sends the dangerous signal 
that it is okay for foreign nations to pick and choose which, if any, 
provisions of an international aviation agreement with the United 
States with which they will comply. This is the wrong message. It sets 
an extremely dangerous precedent.
  On June 20, I, along with 20 colleagues from both sides of the aisle, 
introduced a resolution calling on the Government of Japan to 
immediately honor the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral 
aviation agreement, On the floor the next day I told my colleagues I 
would press this issue if the Government of Japan continued to refuse 
to resolve the passenger carrier issue. Several weeks have passed. The 
passenger carrier dispute remains unresolved. This is why I today offer 
that same resolution as an amendment to the pending bill.
  By passing this amendment, we will send the Government of Japan a 
strong and clear signal that the United States Senate expects it to 
immediately honor the terms of the United States/Japan aviation 
agreement. This is the purpose of my amendment. Simply put, selective 
compliance with international agreements must not be tolerated. The 
Government of Japan must honor the beyond rights of our passenger 
carriers. I urge adoption of this amendment on behalf of myself and my 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the sense-of-
the-Senate amendment of the Senator from South Dakota on this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am a cosponsor. My name was crossed off because 
they were not able to get in touch with me, but I want to be sure that 
I am listed. I did ask that my name be included.
  I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Some names have been crossed off. We are trying to 
contact those offices. We wanted to be sure, since we drafted the 
resolution a couple of months ago, that we did not list any cosponsors 
without their permission. But I think we will have close to 25 
cosponsors.
  I urge the Senators--whose offices are listening--to become 
cosponsors of this amendment because it is a signal to Japan that we 
are tired of their behavior under our bilateral air agreement. We are 
abiding by the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral aviation 
agreement. It is time the Government of Japan also honors that solemn 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.
  The amendment (No. 2336) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2337

   (Purpose: To provide for the allocation to certain airports with 
 respect to which commercial air service has been disrupted during the 
past 3 years, an annual subsidy under the essential air service program 
  under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I 
ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2337.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 4, line 2, strike ``$26,738,536'' and insert 
     ``$27,738,536''.
       On page 4, line 12, insert after ``That'' the following: 
     ``, except if service is provided to the only hub airport in 
     a State that is, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     served under a program under subchapter II of chapter 417 of 
     title 49, United States Code, and the service to that hub 
     airport has been discontinued and then reinstated during the 
     36-month period preceding the date of enactment of this 
     Act,''.
       On page 32, line 15, strike ``$333,000,000'' and insert 
     ``332,000,0000''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment will allow two airports 
in my region to continue to receive funding under the essential air 
service program. There two airports, in Rutland, VT, and Keene, NH, 
depend on this important funding to maintain commercial air service to 
our region. Without this subsidy, commercial air service would halt 
immediately to these communities.
  Mr. President, the city of Rutland is the second largest city in 
Vermont. Commercial air service is vital to ensure that Rutland can 
continue to expand its economy and reach out to businesses throughout 
the country interested in locating to this beautiful city. Two years 
ago, in August 1993, the small airlines serving this city went out of 
business. This left a major gap in the transportation infrastructure in 
Rutland. In December 1993, Colgan airlines revitalized the service to 
Rutland, recognizing that they would be assisted in their efforts to 
service this rural city by the essential air service funding.
  According to many experts, it takes close to 4 years to develop a 
steady clientele to a small, regional airport. Cologan airlines has 
increased ridership in Rutland by 21 percent in the last year. But they 
are not close to breaking even and depend on the subsidy provided by 
the essential air service to maintain service. Colgan predicts that 
they will not need this subsidy for more than 1 year. If we could 
protect this small airline route for 1 year, we would be assured a 
viable commercial passenger air service to this region of Vermont and 
New Hampshire.

[[Page S12062]]

  Mr. President, my amendment will grant Rutland and Keene 1 final year 
of essential air service subsidy. This amendment states that if a 
community has had their commercial air service interrupted during the 
last 24 months and is the only hub covered under the essential air 
service program in that State, then funding will continue for 1 final 
year.
  Mr. President, this air service is too important to Rutland to lose 
at this point. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I thank 
the managers of this legislation for working with me on this important 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have a question on the amendment, 
and I would ask if we can withhold action until we clear up a question 
we have. If the Senator from Vermont will agree, perhaps we can move 
along to the next amendment while we chat about what we see here.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Jeffords amendment, for the 
moment, be set aside to consider other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2338

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2338.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 64, line 15, after the words ``States to'' insert 
     ``establish State infrastructure banks and to''.
       On page 64, line 21, strike the word ``An'' and insert ``A 
     State or''.

  Mr. HATFIELD. This is a technical language correction relating to the 
State bank proposal within our bill, a technical amendment to that 
provision. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If there is no 
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2338) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2339

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Pressler and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Pressler, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2339.

  Mr. HATFIELD. 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 42, beginning on line 13, insert the following:


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission, $13,379,000 shall be for severance, closing 
     costs, and other expenses.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to the ICC 
providing severance pay and closing costs. It has no budgetary impact. 
It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2339) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I should like to indicate that we are 
making progress on completing this list of amendments. We have not yet 
received clearance on one offered by Senator Abraham, one offered by 
Senator Chafee, one offered by Senator Feinstein, one to be offered by 
Senator Gregg, one by Senator Warner--they either have not been cleared 
or they have not been offered--one by Senator Coverdell, two by Senator 
Roth, and one by Senator Burns. Senator Roth has reduced his from two 
to one.
  As the unanimous-consent agreement did indicate and instructed the 
managers and the body, we had to complete all of these amendments 
tonight, and if a vote is required on any one of them, then that will 
be carried over until tomorrow. So if Senators have a desire to offer 
their amendments, we would urge them to come to the floor to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2340

 (Purpose: To strike out sections 350 and 351, relating to waivers of 
  the applicability of certain Federal personnel laws and procurement 
              laws to the Federal Aviation Administration)

  Mr. ROTH. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself, Mr. 
     Glenn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2340.

  Mr. ROTH. 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:

       Beginning on page 71, strike out line 13 and all that 
     follows through page 73, line 24.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, sections 350 and 351 of the bill now before 
the Senate would exempt the Federal Aviation Administration from all 
Federal procurement and personnel laws. While I understand and share in 
the committee's desire to reform the operations of the Federal 
Government, I strongly disagree with the approach embodied in these 
sections. In fact, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I 
am working on a comprehensive reform of Government management 
structures and procedures. So while I support restructuring and reform, 
I join with Senators Glenn, Cohen, Levin, and Pryor in proposing an 
amendment that would strike sections 350 and 351.
  I want to specifically address the need for procurement reform and 
the approach taken by the bill. First, I agree with the need for 
acquisition reform, however, the laws are not primarily the cause of 
the problems at the FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration's troubles 
stem not from the constraints of Federal law but from poor program 
management decisions and lax management. In its reports on high risk, 
the General Accounting Office cited the FAA's air traffic control 
modernization project as a prime example of the failure of civilian 
agencies to improve contract management. The GAO stated the project ``* 
* * failed because FAA did not recognize the technical complexity of 
the effort, realistically estimate the resources required, adequately 
oversee its contractors' activities, or effectively control system 
requirements.'' In 1992, the GAO reported on another FAA program, the 
microwave landing system. The GAO found the FAA's decision to move 
forward was premature ``* * * because the capabilities and benefits of 
the [new system] may be provided by emerging alternative systems''--a 
failure to adequately define program requirements. The GAO also 
observed that ``* * * the agency was committing an insufficient level 
of resources [for development]''. Last February, the GAO's report on a 
third program, the Safety Performance Analysis System, concluded that 
``* * * FAA's current cost estimates for * * * software are subjective, 
not supported by verifiable analysis, and therefore may not be 
reliable.''
  Mr. President, these problems cannot be attributed to either the 
personnel or acquisition laws. Rather, they are a result of poor 
management. Problems of this type can not be effectively addressed by 
exempting the agency experiencing them from laws that affect related 
activities of an agency.

[[Page S12063]]

  Moreover, the FAA's problems are no different from other agencies. 
New weapon systems and virtually every major Federal computer system 
are experiencing large cost and schedule overruns, and technology is 
out of date by the time they will be fielded. The primary causes of the 
problems are poor program management and bureaucratic incentives. 
Consequently, the data suggest that the FAA will experience procurement 
problems whether or not the procurement laws are waived.
  Mr. President, the current laws were put in place to address critical 
issues, such as how do contractors deal with the Government in 
executing a contract or getting paid. Without such system of 
transactions, there will be a proliferation of litigation on every 
aspect of the relationship between the FAA and its contractors. The 
result is that the FAA procurement will grind to a halt. The 
Competition in Contracting Act was created because sole-source 
contracts were driving costs of government contracts skyhigh and 
delivering poor quality products. Given the FAA's management problems, 
I am very concerned that lives will be at risk without the checks and 
balances provided by the procurement rules.
  I would also like to emphasize that we continue to streamline the 
procurement system, including special authorities for the FAA. Last 
year's Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act removed many barriers to 
Government procurement of commercial items and services. It added 
streamlined procurement procedures and provided pay-for-performance 
incentives, which should both make it easier to acquire leading 
technologies and improve management incentives. Why should these be 
removed? Last Friday, the Senate passed Senator Cohen's amendment to 
the Defense authorization bill that will get rid of the so-called 
Brooks act and implement results-oriented management procedures. The 
Governmental Affairs, Armed Services, and Small Business Committees are 
working together to produce additional acquisition reforms. Our bill 
will be ready at the end of September.
  Mr. President, in last year's procurement reform bill, special 
procurement authority was provided to the Administrator of the FAA to 
test waivers of each of the procurement laws that the appropriations 
bills identified. Why have a blanket exemption before we know the 
results of the test program? What additional flexibility is required?
  As with the waiver of the existing procurement laws, equally 
troubling is section 350 of the bill which waives most provisions of 
title 5, the Civil Service personnel laws. This section would allow the 
FAA to unilaterally set up an entirely new personnel system, which sets 
up a terrible precedent for personnel policy reform. Clearly there is a 
need for a complete overhaul of our civil service system. A 
comprehensive reform package is something that I have a deep interest 
in moving through the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee 
with jurisdiction over personnel and procurement laws. However, this 
provision would start us down the path of a piecemeal approach for 
civil service reform and allow for a completely new personnel system 
including a new pay structure, pension and health benefit formulations, 
hiring and firing practices.
  Mr. President, there is no documentation or data to support such a 
drastic approach. A blanket waiver of Federal law is a dangerous 
precedent to set in an appropriations spending bills. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Roth-Glenn amendment to strike.
  Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support and cosponsor the 
amendment offered by Senator Roth about which he just spoke. Senator 
Roth is the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, of course. 
This amendment will strike section 350 and 351 of the appropriations 
bill for the Department of Transportation. Now, if passed, these 
sections would waive civil service laws and procurement laws and 
regulations at the Federal Aviation Administration.
  Before I even address the merits of these sections--though I feel 
they are premature, for as I understand it there are currently several 
proposals on the table to privatize the FAA--and some of those 
proposals include either or both civil service and procurement reforms. 
So there is just no logic to legislating in this area before the 
decision to restructure the FAA has even been made.
  With that said, I do have some substantive objections to both of 
these provisions.
  First, with respect to the waivers of civil service laws, section 350 
of the bill would direct the Secretary of Transportation to create and 
implement a new personnel system for the Federal Aviation 
Administration by January 1, 1996, next January, without regard to 
title 5 or any other Federal personnel law.
  Such a system shall, according to the bill's provisions, provide 
greater flexibility in hiring, training, compensating, and locating 
personnel.
  The appropriations bill language contains no accountability to the 
public or to the Congress of conflict of interest laws and merit system 
hiring principles for this new personnel system.
  It does not require public comments. It does not require public 
notice for this new system. It does not provide any role for the Office 
of Personnel Management to be involved in the creation of this new 
system.
  Instead, I think the language of the bill is reckless. It simply 
demands that a new system be in place in less than 6 months. It just 
says, new system be in place in less than 6 months.
  Well, do we want the employees under the new FAA to be subjected to 
conflict of interest laws? Do we want these employees to be subject to 
the ethics laws? I think we do. Do we want merit systems principles to 
be followed in hiring practices? I think we do.
  I believe we can work cooperatively on legislation that builds these 
sorts of safeguards into a new personnel system for the FAA. But as the 
bill now stands there are no safeguards. The appropriations bill 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to offer flexibility in 
compensation without regard to title 5.
  Employee compensation includes wages, includes health benefits, 
includes pension benefits. If the Secretary of Transportation were, let 
us say, to offer employees under FAA's new personnel system greater 
pension benefits than those enjoyed by other Federal employees, it 
could present a new tax burden to the American taxpayer.
  In short, Mr. President, this sort of authorizing legislation has no 
place on an appropriations bill. I do not believe it has been 
thoughtfully examined or reviewed. With respect to the procurement side 
of things--and this gets even more sticky--this section is not only 
imprudent, I think it is haphazard, and I think it is without 
justification.
  Section 351 waives several procurement laws and the Federal 
acquisition regulations.
  This provision provides for the Secretary of Transportation, in 
consultation with nongovernmental experts in acquisition management, to 
go right ahead and develop and implement an acquisition management 
system for the FAA.
  So, in essence, the companies who benefit from the FAA's largess 
would now be helping to develop the system under which they would 
continue to do business with the FAA. This is just flat wrong, 
especially when taxpayer dollars are involved, and there are going to 
be a lot of them involved.
  Let me go through some of the following laws which would be waived. 
Let me go through them in full.
  First, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. 
If exempted from this law, the FAA would no longer have to follow 
Government procurement procedures, including the Truth in Negotiations 
Act providing for cost data and pricing data for very high-priced 
procurements.
  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act: The FAA could establish 
its own policy for acquiring the products and services it needs and 
would be exempt from the strict, yet very effective procurement 
integrity laws which bind both Government and industry.
  They would be exempt from the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
1994. This act was passed just last year. Among many other reforms, it 
specifically gave FAA the very broad pilot authority to free them from 
the procurement laws and give them the flexibility to move quickly, to 
implement 

[[Page S12064]]
new technology and ideas and bring in new contractors when needed. 
Congress has already bent over backward for them. The time is not ripe 
to abandon any organized acquisition system at the FAA.
  I add, Mr. President, we spent over 3 years putting together that 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, FASA, as it is called. We worked 
on the Governmental Affairs Committee about 2 years to put together the 
ideas of streamlining Federal procurement. We worked through the Armed 
Services Committee with the Pentagon to establish what is called an 800 
panel that gave their recommendations on streamlining procurement. We 
worked with the National Performance Review of this administration when 
they came in. Working altogether in a collegial fashion, we put 
together what is an excellent, new Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
of 1994. That will get knocked out, even though we provided the 
flexibility FAA says that they want.
  Another act that will be involved is the Small Business Act. The 
elimination of this section means the elimination of small business 
set-aside programs and assurances that small businesses are treated 
fairly in the award-decision process.
  Mr. President, let me finish my statement and then I will yield the 
floor. I will be just about 2 or 3 more minutes.
  Another one is the Competition in Contracting Act. With the waiver 
from CICA, the FAA would not have to conduct its acquisitions using the 
present standard of full and open competition which lets all offerors 
in at the outset of a procurement.
  I think it is interesting to note that, as drafted, this section 
leaves the FAA subject to CICA's predecessor, 41 U.S. Code 5, the most 
basic procurement statute, under which the competition standard was 
``maximum practicable.''
  This statute requires that purchases and contracts be advertised, 
subject to exceptions, such as for urgency or being the only known 
source. The requirements for the exceptions to competition are less 
stringent than under CICA. Is this really what the appropriators 
intend? I do not think so.
  Another one is GAO protest authority and the Brooks ADP Act. Under 
these sections, the FAA would be exempt from the GAO and GSBCA bid 
protest processes. That would leave the FAA subject to protests in 
court, a much more time-consuming and expensive process than either the 
GAO or the GSBCA. It would also take away GSA's delegation of 
procurement authority or for the FAA's acquisition of computer and 
other technology.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulations: By waiving the FAR, the FAA 
would be exempt from all regulations pertaining to procurement.
  By waiving all of these laws and regulations, there will be no hard 
and fast rules governing business between the Government and the 
contractor. How are we going to do business? How are contractors going 
to litigate disputes they have with the Government on ongoing 
contracts?
  In short, Mr. President, this section of the proposed bill eliminates 
the current system of checks and balances which has developed in 
response to problems over the years.
  I know that probably the proponents of this part of the legislation 
will say that we have a statement of administration policy that backs 
this up, but I quote from that statement of administration policy where 
it said that their support for this includes fast-track authority for a 
departmental reorganization plan and Federal Aviation Administration 
personnel and procurement reform which the administration has proposed 
as part of comprehensive FAA reform.
  I do not quarrel with that. They do want some reform in this, but 
this is for a departmental reorganization, not for details of 
procurement we are talking about here.
  I will add that we have asked them for a clarifying letter, and 
before there is a vote on this tomorrow morning, we will have that 
clarifying letter sent over to us from the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy and, hopefully, from the Office of Management and 
Budget Office itself. So we will have that before there is a vote on 
that tomorrow morning.
  So for all these reasons, Mr. President, I hope that we will have 
general support for the amendment by the distinguished chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Roth, to strike this section.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Roth's amendment. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

                          ____________________