[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 134 (Thursday, August 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12113-S12120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2002, which the clerk will report.
  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.
       Pending:
       (1) Jeffords-Leahy amendment No. 2337, 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.
       (2) Roth amendment No. 2340, 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.
       (3) Burns amendment No. 2341, to protect shippers in a 
     captive shipper state.
       (4) Pressler amendment No. 2345, to provide funding for 
     rail freight infrastructure.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The pending question is 
amendment No. 2340. Two minutes to a side have been allocated for 
debate prior to the vote.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Who yields time?


                      Amendment No. 2337 withdrawn

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before we have the debate, I ask that the 
Jeffords amendment be withdrawn. 

[[Page S 12114]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2337) was withdrawn.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
                           amendment no. 2340

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Roth-Glenn amendment would strike the 
waiver that would free the FAA from being required to comply with 
Federal personnel and procurement policies. This waiver is bad policy; 
it sets a bad precedent; it is legislation of a most unfortunate type 
on an appropriation bill. With this waiver, the FAA could ignore 
Federal personnel and procurement policies and create whatever policies 
it sees fit. It could pay as little or as much as it wants; create new 
pensions; ignore such laws as competition in contracting.
  Make no mistake, this waiver would result in serious controversy and 
litigation.
  Mr. President, Senator Glenn and I are the ranking member and 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the committee 
of jurisdiction on personnel and procurement policies. We stand ready 
to work with the FAA in reforming these policies, as we believe reform 
is necessary. But, we have received no request for any such waiver from 
the FAA.
  In fact, last year, we gave the FAA authority to test waivers of 
procurement laws. But, this bill proposes a blanket exemption before we 
know the results of that test. Moreover, the GAO found the FAA's 
problems are not the procurement or personnel laws, but a lack of 
adequate management. The FAA cannot properly define what it wants to 
buy, estimate its costs, or administer its contracts.
  If the Glenn-Roth amendment fails, mark my words, today is the day 
that the Senate gives birth to the next major procurement horror story. 
We are rewarding incompetent managers with more money and no 
accountability. We are putting both billions of dollars and lives at 
risk. I encourage my colleagues to defeat the motion to table this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, very briefly, I would like to indicate 
the reason the Appropriations Committee brought this language to the 
floor. This was at the behest of the FAA and the administration saying 
we have a crisis, a very serious crisis in air safety, because the FAA, 
as administrators, for years have said they needed to get some kind of 
change in these rules. Secretary Pena and Administrator Hinson face 
this today.
  One example: The FAA is the world's largest consumer of vacuum tubes 
and there is, in this bill, a requirement to use $7 million to buy more 
when the private sector has thrown this technology out 20 years ago. 
Consequently, we have to recognize that it is a safety factor that 
involves this language. We did not make up this language.
  Last night, there was discussion and debate saying, well, what is the 
role of the administration? We ought to get a clarification. Government 
Operations people said they have been ready to talk. Let me give you a 
recitation. We have a second letter. We had a letter from OMB 
supporting this. Secretary Pena sends us a second letter reiterating 
the vital importance to give them this kind of support.
  DOT says they have talked to Governmental Affairs. DOT does support 
the committee provision. The National Performance Review, headed by 
Vice President Gore, specifically called for a special exemption for 
the FAA given its crisis situation.
  So it is a very clear picture here because of whatever--I am not 
making any criticism to any committee. Senator Lautenberg and I have 
been following the support and the requests of the administration to 
help them out of this crisis for the sake of safety of our national 
airlines. Therefore, we will drop this language in conference if we can 
work out the solution.
  In the meantime, I urge that we vote to table the Roth amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the 
amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  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 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 381 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Roth
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2340) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion 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. 2341

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On amendment No. 2341, there are now 4 minutes 
equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Chair informs the Senate that time is running for both sides.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, the next amendment is my amendment that we 
talked about last night.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we can 
understand what the amendment is about?
  May we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will suspend.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will not begin his 
explanation until we get order and we can hear what he says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BURNS. The amendment was nothing but language that would protect 
those States who are captive shippers if we phase out the ICC. I 
understand that was the intent of the budget resolution, and that is 
the route that we are taking. This language does nothing but protect 
those States who are captive shippers because in my State of Montana, I 
think there is only one, or maybe two, that would fall under that 
definition, because right now we have a circumstance where the freight 
rates on wheat shipping and on agricultural commodities shipped from 
Montana to Portland cost more than it does to ship from Omaha to 
Portland--to the same point--at a longer distance.
  I understand there is some confusion. I visited with the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee and have been assured that there will be 
money enough for a transition from the ICC to the Department of 
Transportation. If that be the case, then I would consider withdrawing 
this amendment altogether.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I respond to the Senator from Montana by indicating two 


[[Page S 12115]]
points: The first is the transition has yet to be blueprinted by the 
authorizing committee. Second, the House has $21 billion in theirs and 
we have $18 billion in ours for that orderly transition. We feel that 
by the time, hopefully, that we go to conference, we will have a little 
more clearer signal of how the transition is going to occur. We are 
willing to certainly have adequate figures, if that means yielding to 
the House for the figures for the transition.
  Mr. BURNS. I think that would be the proper way, and that gives the 
Commerce Committee time enough. I know there is some concern by the 
ranking member and the chairman of the Commerce Committee. That would 
be the proper way to do it. I would rather do it through the 
authorizing committee than this way. But what I was afraid of is that I 
did not want to leave my farmers and people who ship agricultural 
commodities exposed during that transition because we are in that kind 
of a situation of being a captive shipper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, time for debate has 
expired.


                      Amendment No. 2341 withdrawn

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2341) was withdrawn.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2345

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, No. 2345. There are 
10 minutes equally divided for debate.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Dakota.


                    Amendment No. 2345, As Modified

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2345), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       On page 26, line 15, strike ``1996.'' and insert ``1996, 
     except for not more than $50,000,000 in loan guarantee 
     commitments during such fiscal year (and $5,000,000 is hereby 
     made available for the cost of such loan guarantee 
     commitments).''.
       On page 54, line 5, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$12,500,000.''
       On page 54, line 8, strike ``$99,364,000'' and insert 
     ``$91,864,000''.
       On page 26, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:


                     local rail freight assistance

       For necessary expenses for rail assistance under section 
     5(q) of the Department of Transportation Act, $12,000,000.
       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 18, line 1, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,600,000''.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would first like to extend my 
appreciation to the managers of the bill, Senators Hatfield and 
Lautenberg, for agreeing to permit me to offer this amendment. We spent 
a good deal of time last night working in good faith to reach an 
agreement on proceeding forward on my proposal. I very much appreciate 
their assistance and that of their staffs and the staffs of several 
other Senators.
  My perseverance on this matter is because of its great importance to 
my State and almost every other State. My amendment would provide 
funding for the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program and the Section 
511 Loan Guarantee Program. These programs are critical to addressing 
our Nation's rail freight infrastructure needs.
  Adequate investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
makes for wise use of our very limited Federal resources. Therefore, as 
we consider this appropriations bill, we must determine funding 
priorities for our entire national transportation system. In that 
effort, we must not forget about one very critical transportation 
mode--rail freight service.
  The appropriators were unable to fund the LRFA Program or the section 
511 Loan Guarantee Program. I know they have worked hard to consider 
many funding requests. However, funding for these programs was not 
allocated. Yet these are the only Federal programs that provide for 
infrastructure investments in short-line and regional railroads.
  As my colleagues know, H.R. 2002 provides a good deal of money to 
fund rail passenger service. I am proposing we not overlook the 
importance of rail freight service. Even limited Federal involvement 
will help to rebuild and improve the raillines serving our smaller 
cities and rural areas. These secondary raillines are critical to the 
survival of rural America's economy, but the capital to maintain them 
is extremely limited.
  We have invested billions of dollars in Amtrak as well as high-speed 
rail initiatives, yet little has been invested in the rail freight 
lines serving our smaller communities. Federal involvement in rail 
service should not be limited to rail passenger transportation. 
Certainly, Amtrak and high-speed rail are important. However, for 
States like South Dakota, which has no Amtrak service and will never 
benefit from high-speed rail, funding for freight rail infrastructure 
is even more important.
  The LRFA Program has proven to play a vital role in our Nation's rail 
transportation system. This program was created in 1973 and has helped 
States save raillines that otherwise would be abandoned. LRFA's 
matching requirements enable limited Federal, State, and local 
resources to be leveraged. Most of LRFA's success has been due to its 
ability to promote investment partnerships, thus, maximizing very 
limited Federal assistance.
  Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal 
funding. Only $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal year 1995, 
and then $6.5 million of that amount was rescinded by Public Law 104-6. 
Yet, LRFA remains very popular.
  In fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance for 59 
projects--totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. But less 
than one-third of funding was available to meet these rail 
infrastructure needs. With continued railroad restructuring, these 
legitimate funding needs will only increase.
  On July 20, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation to 
permanently authorize LRFA at $25 million annually.
  As my colleagues may already know, oftentimes, small railroads face 
unique problems and difficulties securing needed financing. Unlike 
other businesses that need short-term loans, smaller railroads need 
long-term financing for big ticket items, ranging anywhere from 
equipment to track rehabilitation. Yet, I understand most financial 
institutions will not make loans that are not repaid within 7 or 8 
years. These loan arrangements simply do not work for smaller 
railroads. Section 511 loans were permanently authorized to address 
these problems and should be funded.
  In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 Program 
provides a cost effective method of ensuring modest infrastructure 
investment on a repayable basis. We should support programs like the 
511 Program and LRFA that provide excellent leverage of our limited 
Federal dollars.
  The 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee program is permanently authorized at 
$1 billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available 
for commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require an appropriation 
for the 511 Loan Program to cover the anticipated loss to the 
Government over the life of each loan. Based on a fiscal year 1994 
appropriation for a 511 project in New York State--the first 511 
application processed under the rules of the Credit Reform Act--5 
percent of the total loan obligation level must be appropriated.
  Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to submit loan 
applications as soon as the program is appropriated funding. My 
amendment provides $10 million to enable up to $100 million in loans.
  I have worked to find the least painful offset possible. The managers 
and their staffs, as well as the staffs of several other Senators, 
helped me in that effort. These programs would be offset by reductions 
in administrative expenses. I believe we have accomplished a reasoned 
approach.
  Mr. President, LRFA and the 511 Program are worthy programs and 
should be funded. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. 

[[Page S 12116]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as much as I would like to respond to 
the request of the Senator from South Dakota, I have to report to the 
body of the Senate this account has expired. It is not authorized.
  The authorization in the Amtrak bill that was reported ordered out of 
the Commerce Committee in July has not been filed with any report, so 
consequently we cannot say it is authorized.
  We rescinded the 1995 amount left in their unexpended budget in the 
rescissions package.
  The budget resolution terminated the program in the assumptions of 
the budget resolution.
  So consequently, as much as we might be prone to help, we are doing 
this within that kind of a framework and therefore, as the Committee on 
Appropriations tries to follow the authorizers and tries to accommodate 
to the authorizers, this does not really authorize the program.
  So I would move to table the Pressler amendment under those 
circumstances, unless there is someone else who wants to use some of my 
time to make further comment.
  I might also say it offsets some very vital programs of the next 
generation of rail and similar such programs in which we have already 
made commitments in this budget in allocating money for those programs.
  I move to table the Pressler amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Pressler amendment 2345, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 382 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murray
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 2345) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. 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 two letters 
from Alice Rivlin relating to the issue we have voted on on the Roth 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I understand concerns have been 
     raised about language in the Department of Transportation 
     appropriations bill that would exempt the Federal Aviation 
     Administration from federal personnel and procurement rules, 
     outside the context of the Administration's proposal to make 
     the FAA a government corporation. The Administration is on 
     record as supporting personnel, procurement, and budget 
     reform in the FAA.
       The Adminstration's view is that the FAA has a special 
     situation in terms of personnel, procurement, and budget 
     laws, due to its operating demands. The Administration's 
     views should not be considered as a precedent for our views 
     on other possible proposals to exempt government 
     organizations from personnel and procurement rules.
           Sincerely,
     Alice M. Rivlin.
                                                                    ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, August 10, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration strongly supports 
     reform of the personnel and procurement practices of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration.
       The Administration called for such reforms in the 
     comprehensive FAA reform legislation submitted on March 30, 
     1995, to create an Air Traffic Control Corporation. Air 
     traffic control is unlike any other government function, in 
     that it is the only 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-week government 
     operation that activities of an entire industry. Moreover, 
     the budget constraints we face in the coming years requires 
     that we take actions now to give the Department and the FAA 
     the flexibility it needs to staff and operate critical safety 
     functions. There are urgent needs for ensuring the safety and 
     effectiveness or our air traffic control system as we move 
     into the next century. We greatly appreciate your attention 
     and the attention of the Senate Commerce Committee to this 
     central issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin.
                  committee recommendation for transit

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee regarding the funding provided through the 
Federal Transit Administration for section 3 projects.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I will be pleased to discuss this matter with the 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to join in the colloquy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the State of New Mexico, like many of 
our Western States, has more highway transportation than rail or 
transit. Very seldom do I receive a request for assistance from a town 
or city for assistance with their local transit systems.
  However, after the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this 
bill, I did receive a request from the city of Taos, NM for funding 
through the section 3 program of the Federal Transit Administration for 
a small amount to support maintenance facilities and ADA-equipped 
buses.
  As the chairman knows, the retrofitting requirements for buses and 
other transportation systems under the Americans With Disabilities Act 
is very costly for small jurisdictions in particular.
  I realize that the committee has fully subscribed the section 3 
program in the bill. I would hope, however, that should the full amount 
currently in the bill not be utilized in conference, that the committee 
might give this important request its consideration for inclusion in 
the final bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Although it is difficult to anticipate the disposition 
of the section 3 funding in conference, I believe the conferees would 
be willing to consider this request at the appropriate time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I, too, think the conferees could consider this 
request when it considers the section 3 funding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would appreciate review and consideration of this 
matter in conference. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member for their time.


                         essential air service

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Pressler and I would like to 
engage the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Senator Hatfield, and the distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, in a colloquy on H.R. 2002, 
the 

[[Page S 12117]]
fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill and essential air 
service [EAS].
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg and I would be happy 
to discuss the EAS provisions in the appropriations bill with the 
Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, before discussing the EAS provisions in 
the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman 
and the ranking member on the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee for the fine work they did on this bill. As chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, I understand the difficult choices they had to 
make and the limited resources they had at their disposal.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee for his kind remarks.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Pressler and I understand the 
fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill, as approved by the 
Appropriations Committee, limits EAS subsidies for those communities 
that, first, are located fewer than 75 highway miles from the nearest 
large, medium, or small hub airport; and, second, require a rate of 
subsidy per passenger in excess of $200, when that community is less 
than 200 miles from a large or medium hub.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, that is also my understanding.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under those restrictions using 1993 data, 
it is our understanding that Brookings, SD and Mitchell, SD would no 
longer be eligible for EAS subsidies because they are located more than 
75 miles from the Sioux Falls airport. As my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation know, under data compiled 
by the Department of Transportation in 1993, the Sioux Falls airport 
was determined to be a small hub.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Department 
of Transportation determined that the Sioux Falls airport was a small 
hub in 1993.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that is also my understanding.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I also understand 
that preliminary data compiled by the Department of Transportation for 
1994 indicates that enplanements have declined at the Sioux Falls 
airport to such an extent that it will no longer be considered a small 
hub.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is our understanding that the Sioux 
Falls airport, in fact, will no longer be considered a small hub 
according to preliminary data compiled by the Department of 
Transportation for 1994.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is our understanding that since the 
Sioux Falls airport will not be considered a small hub, Brookings and 
Mitchell, SD will be further than 75 miles from a large, medium, or 
small hub and, consequently, will continue to be eligible for EAS 
subsidies.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The 
administration will be using the most current data that they have 
available when administering the program in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that is also my understanding.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for their 
clarification and assurance.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank my 
distinguished colleagues for this clarification.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concerns with some 
legislative provisions in this appropriations bill and to pledge to 
continue working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to 
correct these deficiencies.
  First, I must state that I regret that the committee recommends $1 
billion less for highway programs than Congress approved in 1995. These 
funds are available in the highway trust fund and must be fully 
utilized so that our States can maintain an efficient transportation 
system, one able to compete in a global marketplace.
  This bill also contains legislative provisions that are under the 
purview of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I concur with 
the committee's recommendation, with some technical adjustments, to 
provide States with increased flexibility to address the section 1003 
provision in ISTEA which could result in a 13-percent reduction in 
State apportionments in Federal-aid highway funds in 1996. This fix 
will allow States to trade in unobligated balances from prior years to 
restore fiscal year 1996 apportionments.
  As the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I can assure my colleagues that we 
have been working on a resolution to this situation for the past 
several months. When the Senate was considering S. 440 to designate the 
National Highway System, there was no consensus among the States and 
the Department of Transportation on how best to fix the section 1003 
problem. This compromise clearly addresses a critical problem the 
States will be facing at the beginning of the new fiscal year, on 
October 1. For this reason, I support its addition to the 
appropriations bill.
  However, I do not support the provision which provides for regional 
infrastructure banks as currently drafted. No emergency situation 
exists which requires the Congress to prematurely adopt this proposal. 
I am generally favorable to innovative finance solutions which would 
allow States to leverage their funds to address the backlog of 
infrastructure needs. Several provisions were incorporated into the 
National Highway System legislation to grant States new authority in 
this area.
  The regional infrastructure bank proposal put forth in this 
legislation is unworkable for our States and unlikely to achieve its 
intended purpose. Primarily, I strongly oppose the requirement that 
State infrastructure banks be regional before a State can have access 
to airport funds. The Federal Highway Administration advises me that 
their interpretation of this provision requires that there be 
multistate banks before any of these funds could be utilized.
  While I believe there is merit to voluntary State infrastructure 
banks where States determine if their highway funds should be used for 
this purpose, I fundamentally reject the co-mingling of airport and 
highway funds as permitted in this proposal. Highway trust fund dollars 
are collected by a tax motorists pay on gasoline for the direct purpose 
of constructing and maintaining our surface transportation system. We 
would be breaking faith with our citizens each time they buy a gallon 
of gasoline if we allow these funds to be used for airport purposes.
  As I have previously mentioned, it appears that this provision will 
be very difficult for our States to implement. There are only a few 
large States that currently have the ability to take advantage of this 
provision. Many States would have to change their State constitutions 
or State laws to create these regional infrastructure banks to allow 
the mixing of multistate funds.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee will continue to work with us on this very complex and 
important matter which could change the direction of financing our 
Nation's infrastructure needs. When the Senate goes to conference on 
the National Highway System legislation, it is my intention to address 
the need for voluntary State infrastructure banks, in cooperation with 
State departments of transportation and other users of our surface 
transportation system.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the two floor 
managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator 
Hatfield, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Lautenberg, and their staff, for their excellent and efficient 
management of the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act for the 
Department of Transportation.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an amendment I offered 
last night, which passed by voice vote without objection. My amendment 
encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more energy 
efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5 
percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the 
year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations 
for 

[[Page S 12118]]
further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to every 
appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year, and it 
has been accepted to each one.
  I believe this is a common-sense amendment: The Federal Government 
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000 
buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save 
Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate 
that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make 
an effort to become more efficient and conserve energy.
  Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use 
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in 
insulation building controls, lighting, heating, and air-conditioning. 
The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency 
use streamlined energy saving performance contracts procedures, modeled 
after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies have 
made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to get 
Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency, with 
the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to 
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I am pleased 
my colleagues support it, and again, I thank the floor managers for 
their assistance. Thank you.


                 terminal doppler weather radar (tdwr)

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, windshear remains the primary weather-
related threat to airline safety. The FAA originally established a 
requirement for 102 TDWR systems for the U.S. airports that have 
significant risks from windshear--severe weather exposure. To date, 47 
TDWR systems have been purchased; 55 systems remain to be acquired and 
installed.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee was under severe budget 
restrictions, but did add funding of $2,500,000 above the FAA request 
for the installation of a previously purchased TDWR at Las Vegas and 
for the environmental impact statement process in New York. The House 
added funding for five new TDWR's.
  Baton Rouge and Shreveport have been identified as airports in need 
of TDWR systems to identify windshear. Both the chairman and ranking 
Member spoke of the need for additional funding for worthy projects. 
While I fully understand the budget constraints on all of the 
appropriations bills, I would encourage the conferees to review the 
potential for saving lives that these systems bring to those of us who 
travel, or have loved ones who travel by air.
           LOW ROLLING RESISTANCE AND TIRE GRADING STANDARDS

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a question raised 
by the committee during its consideration.
  A provision included in the House passed bill provides that none of 
the funds appropriated by the 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, already in effect.
  The Senate subsequently struck this provision. While I appreciate the 
committee's position on this provision and understand the difficulty 
faced by the committee as it deals with the regulatory process, I 
wanted to make clear my concerns about the proposed regulations 
regarding tire grading standards.
  As part of a response to the President's Climate Change Action Plan, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] has issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the uniform tire quality grading 
standards [UTQS] to replace the temperature resistance grade with a 
rolling resistance/fuel economy standard.
  This proposal is currently under consideration by NHTSA and if 
implemented, tire manufacturers are required to add a new rolling 
resistance grading standard whose value I believe is questionable.
  The proposed regulation assumes that lower rolling resistance will 
reduce fuel consumption. While there is some validity to the premise, 
in practice it is uncertain and other factors beyond rolling resistance 
contribute. If low rolling resistance does not effectively reduce fuel 
consumption then any demonstrated environmental impact is diminished.
  Tire design is a matter of tradeoffs. For every positive feature some 
allowance may be made for a reduction in other characteristics. Lower 
rolling resistance can compromise traction or treadwear and therefore 
safety. I believe that these tradeoffs have not been adequately 
reviewed.
  I am concerned that the cost to both industry and the consumer will 
outweigh any benefit. I understand that the additional cost of each 
tire is estimated to be $22 and that even after potential fuel savings 
are included, the consumer will not pay for the investment.
  Tire manufacturing is already a globally competitive industry. 
Additional costs could impact that competitiveness. This rule would 
also raise a question regarding nontariff trade barriers.
  I raise these concerns so that the committee will be fully aware of 
these issues as it proceeds to conference and that these questions can 
be considered as it continues its work on this bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this appropriations bill providing funds 
for the agencies of the Department of Transportation is truly 
bittersweet for this Senator from California.
  Although there is much in this bill that will benefit my State, 
however, the budget cuts are deeply disturbing. The bill is $1 billion 
less in total spending for transportation over funding for the current 
fiscal year. These cuts were foreseen when the Senate voted for the 
Republican budget resolution. I opposed the budget resolution, in part 
because of how these drastically lower budget levels would block our 
progress in repairing and improving our infrastructure and 
reinvigorating our economy. This is a budget largely in retreat from 
the challenges ahead.
  Our air traffic control system is in crisis. Wednesday's power 
failure of two of the three power generators--while the third was off 
line for maintenance--at the Air Route Traffic Control Center at 
Oakland, CA, was only the latest failure of our aging, 1950's and 
1960's era air traffic control system. The Oakland center lost all 
radar, flight data processing and communications system power. Power 
was restored in just over an hour but only after causing serious 
disruptions and threats to air safety for about 60 to 70 aircraft in 
the area.
  Sufficient funding for critical air traffic control improvements must 
be a priority. The bill provides $8 million for air traffic management 
technology which was not funded by the House. This funding is key to 
avoid delays in the development of new traffic flow management 
capabilities for the air traffic control system. At $12 million, the 
bill maintains the current year's level of funding for system capacity, 
planning and improvements, but it is double the House level. Air safety 
technology is increased overall from $30 million by the House to $40.5 
million in the Senate.
  However, I am concerned that neither the House nor the Senate funded 
the administration's request for $1 million in cabin safety technology 
research. As the former chair of the House Government Activities and 
Transportation Subcommittee, I can attest to the ongoing need for 
Federal efforts for improved cabin safety, particularly in reducing 
flammability and improved exiting.
  I also join with the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, in deploring 
the cuts in incentive pay for our overworked air traffic controllers. I 
support his efforts to try and restore some of these funds in 
conference with the House.
  Despite tough budget cuts, we have cause to praise other elements of 
this bill that deserve recognition. In recognizing the scarcity of 
transportation project funds, the committee crafted an innovative 
financing plan based on the administration proposals. Although the plan 
is not as well funded from the Federal side as I had hoped, it will 
permit California to obtain attractive, private sector financing for 
major infrastructure improvements.
  The bill creates State and regional infrastructure banks, providing 
$250 

[[Page S 12119]]
million in Federal general revenue funds and permitting States to 
allocate up to 10 percent of their Federal highway dollars. Funds 
deposited in these banks will capitalize a revolving loan program and 
enable the States to obtain a substantial line of credit. The 
infrastructure banks will assist a variety of projects, including 
freight rail, aviation and highway projects. This assistance would be 
in the form of financing for construction loans, pooling bond issues, 
refinancing outstanding debt and other forms of credit enhancement.
  California will receive $21 million for this purpose, the highest of 
any State.
  I am pleased that the Senate unanimously accepted my amendment to 
ensure that California, and other States which already have authorized 
State infrastructure banks, could participate and not be required to 
form multi-State compacts as provided in the bill. This will help the 
State move quickly on a financing program.
  I am also pleased that the committee, at my request, cited in its 
report the Alameda Transportation Corridor project to improve the rail 
and highway access to the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a fine 
example of a project that could benefit from this financing. I hope 
that the State will decide to use this option to help the Alameda 
Corridor project. This financing could also benefit the efforts in San 
Diego to reopen the 108-mile San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway, 
providing San Diego companies direct access to El Centro-based rail 
networks to the Eastern United States and the interior of Mexico.
  These are important infrastructure projects of both State and 
national significance and will help expand trade and create jobs.
  California benefitted from several individual projects in this bill.
  In particular, I had personally urged members to support the 
President's request for $22.6 million for the bay area rail program. 
This funding is vital for the airport expansion project of the Bay Area 
Rapid Transit District and the light rail program along the Tasman 
Corridor in Santa Clara. Not only did the Senate more than double the 
level provided by the House, but the funding is directed for the bay 
area program and not limited to BART. This is an important distinction. 
The bay area program is a careful regional compromise to provide needed 
passenger rail transportation improvements. The House funding directed 
only to BART is an inappropriate interference with this local program.
  Unfortunately, the bill also severely under funds the Metro Red Line 
[MOS-3] extension in Los Angeles. The $45 million is drastically below 
the $159 million requested by the President and $125 million set by the 
House.
  However, despite my urging for the committee to approve the 
President's request, I am not surprised by the cut. The problems in 
subway construction, particularly the lack of adequate oversight and 
maintenance of construction standards, combined with the disunity among 
local officials resulted in this severe cut. I am hopeful that we can 
persuade the House and Senate conferees to at least meet halfway to 
provide $85 million for the program.
  Despite this cut, the committee nearly doubled the House level for 
the Gateway Intermodal Center in Los Angeles, providing $12 million to 
complete the facility which will house the central connections for the 
subway, commuter rail and interstate passenger rail traffic.
  I am also pleased at the $8 million set aside for the Advanced 
Technology Transit Bus, the so-called stealth bus that uses the 
expertise that Northrop developed for the stealth fighter into a high-
tech urban transit bus for the next century. This funding--above the 
President's request--will ensure that we will have prototypes ready to 
roll in the fall of 1996.
  The bill includes my request for $4.5 million to the bay area transit 
systems to help them implement the Americans with Disability Act 
requirements. These improvements include fixed-route improvements for 
the Contra Costa Transit District, a replacement van for Western Contra 
Costa County Transit Authority, 25 vans for San Francisco Muni, and 20 
paratransit vehicles, signs and bus stop improvements for the Santa 
Clara County Transit District.
  There is $10 million that I requested for a San Diego-Mexico border 
bus/highway center. The San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center 
operated by the Metropolitan Transit District Board will provide 
improved traffic circulation improvements at this major United States-
Mexico border crossing.
  There is $10.56 million that I requested for the San Joaquin Rapid 
Transit District in Stockton. The district has an extensive bus 
replacement program for this rapidly growing area with serious air 
quality problems. Funding will help provide seven replacement and 10 
expansion buses using Compressed Natural Gas technology. Another 17 
replacement and 6 expansion buses are needed for demand response 
services and 25 vans for alternative transportation services.
  The bill also provides $3 million to the Long Beach Transit District 
for its bus replacement and parts program.
  Mr. President, although this bill hardly provides everything we need 
in California to erase our infrastructure deficit, at least California 
received a fair share of the funds provided and provides tools for 
leveraging scarce Federal dollars.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to applaud the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation for its good work on the fiscal year 
1996 transportation appropriations bill. They produced a relatively 
pork-free bill and for that they deserve much credit.
  I did want to specifically note two provisions in the bill which do 
cause me concern.
  The bill mandates that $15,000,000 for debt retirement of the Port of 
Portland, OR. I strongly object to this earmark being included in the 
bill.
  There are many communities around the country which have outstanding 
bonds and debt which they must pay. Those cities and localities are 
working hard to better their fiscal condition. But they are doing it on 
their own initiative. They are not receiving a Federal bailout. And, 
Mr. President, that is exactly what this provision is: a Federal 
bailout.
  It is unfair to those many communities that we are using the Federal 
largesse to help one specific city on the basis of less than compelling 
factors.
  Additionally, the bailout is not truly necessary.
  Proponents of the bailout claim the port is owed this money because a 
proposed change in law included in the Alaska Power Administration Sale 
Act which is pending in Congress, will adversely affect the port's 
financial viability and alter a longstanding Federal-State agreement. 
While it is true that we are proposing to change the law, such a 
change, I believe will not adversely affect the Port of Portland in the 
long run.
  Under current law, Alaskan oil is carried by U.S.-flag ships from 
Alaska to the Port of Portland. Because of the large amount of ship 
traffic, the port has stayed relatively busy. Port officials are 
concerned, however, that if these same ships are allowed to carry this 
oil across the Pacific that they will have their repairs done in Asia, 
which will result in a loss of business for the Port of Portland.
  I believe this fear to be unfounded and thus the bailout not truly 
necessary. United States law requires that Alaskan oil must be carried 
in U.S.-flag ships. Additionally, these tankers must pay a 50-percent 
duty for any repairs made in a foreign port. This is a strong 
disincentive for such operators to have repair done outside the United 
States. As a matter of fact, the additional wear and tear on these 
ships generated by their extensive travel may result in an even greater 
use of the Port of Portland in the long run.
  Additionally, close examination of the port's financial reports show 
that the shipyard's fiscal strength began to decline in the mid-1980's. 
Therefore, it is hard to believe passage of any legislation in 1995 
would be responsible for a 10-year slow decline of the port's business.
  Further, while the shipyard has been in decline, other assets held by 
the port have been rapidly growing. The Port of Portland controls and 
operates a seaport, Portland International Airport, and several real 
estate holdings in the Portland area. Portland International Airport is 
one of the fastest growing airports in the Nation. In 1994, the number 
of passengers using the airport 

[[Page S 12120]]
increased by 16 percent and the amount of freight increased 14 percent. 
The shipping activities of the seaport have also been growing--
outpacing the growth of all other seaports on the west coast. There is 
no reason to believe that this growth will not continue to occur.
  These booming holdings of the Port of Portland should be more than 
able to help the port during any further economic decline, and thus 
there is no need for Federal assistance to this local--not Federal--
entity.
  I also want to note my dismay over a provision added to the bill that 
would mandate that the General Services Administration and the 
Department of Agriculture transfer Federal land to the city of Hoboken, 
NJ.
   Mr. President, I raise this not to debate whether the land in 
Hoboken should or should not be transferred to the city. I am told by 
GSA that they would not oppose such a transfer and that the Federal 
Government has no further use for the land.
  I raise this issue because there is an administrative procedure in 
place that governs the disposal of excess or unneeded Federal property. 
That administrative procedure is designed to ensure that all parties 
are treated fairly, and that the Government's--and the taxpayer's--best 
interests are paramount. By adding a provision to this bill to mandate 
the immediate disposal of this Federal land, the proper process is 
being circumvented. Elected officials, and the public, have no way to 
know if we are doing the right thing when the proper, open process is 
circumvented. We can only speculate that this transfer is truly in the 
public's interest, not to mention that bypassing appropriate procedures 
invites others to do the same which is neither fair nor in the public 
interest.
  Both of the provisions I have mentioned should not be in this bill 
and I would hope they would both be dropped in conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I believe the Senator from Arizona, [Mr. McCain], 
desires to have a brief colloquy before we go to final passage.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Oregon, the 
distinguished chairman, in light of the failure of the tabling motion 
of this language concerning the FAA procurement and personnel reform, I 
ask unanimous consent that there be language inserted that that would 
not take effect until the 1st of April, as we have discussed before, in 
order that the authorizing committees might have an opportunity to act 
in an overall broad reformation of the FAA and the funding.
  I seek that unanimous-consent request from the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. This was a 
discussion yesterday and last evening as well. We are very happy to 
join in that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I agree. I think it is a wise decision 
and I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Arizona recommended it. 
It will give the committees an opportunity to do what we wanted them to 
do in the first place, very frankly, and the reason for the language in 
the bill. So I think it is a good idea.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that language be 
inserted at the appropriate point in a technical fashion, a technical 
amendment, in order to make the effective date of procurement reform, 
personnel reform of the FAA effective as of April 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Will the Senator send his 
amendment to the desk?
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________