[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16350-S16358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on H.R. 2002 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the 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, having 
     met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
     and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 20, 1995.)
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are here this morning to present the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 
As we all know, the Department of Transportation, like many other 
departments, is operating under the very strict terms of the continuing 
resolution. This conference report will allow the Department to operate 
for fiscal year 1996 without the restrictions of the continuing 
resolution; but more importantly, it will fund vital programs such as 
air traffic control, Coast Guard search and rescue, and other critical 
safety functions.
  I am pleased that, in conference with the House, the Senate was able 
to increase funding for a number of important programs, since the 
conference allocation for the bill was $100 million higher in budget 
authority and $193 million higher in outlays than the Senate-passed 
bill. This year, the problems facing the conferees were the same as 
those faced in the past--that is, how to strike the best possible 
balance between the operational needs of the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Coast Guard with sufficient funding for the 
Nation's infrastructure and transportation safety needs. I believe that 
this agreement provides a balanced and fair solution for the challenges 
we faced.

[[Page S16351]]

  The conference report before you today contains a total of $12.5 
billion in discretionary budget authority and $36.754 billion in 
outlays. I will quickly review some of the highlights of the bill.
  Total Coast Guard funding is $3.375 billion, which is supplemented by 
an additional $300 million to be transferred to the Coast Guard by the 
Department of Defense. The conferees are very appreciative of the fine 
work and cooperation of Senate Defense Subcommittee Chairman Stevens 
and House Chairman Young. With these funds, the Coast Guard conference 
total will be approximately $110 million more than the fiscal year 1995 
enacted level.
  For the Federal Aviation Administration, a total of $8.2 billion has 
been provided, which includes $4.6 billion for FAA's operations; over 
$1.9 billion for associated facilities and equipment purchases; and 
$1.45 billion for grants in aid for airport construction. In addition, 
the conference agreement directs FAA to institute personnel and 
procurement reforms which are desperately needed. The conferees believe 
that these reforms will allow the FAA to operate more efficiently. I 
should point out that these reforms are fully supported by the 
administration. The reform provisions contained in this bill will not 
become effective until April 1, 1996, which will allow for sufficient 
and adequate review by not only the appropriate authorizing committees, 
but also by all affected FAA employees and systems users.
  For the Federal Highway Administration, the bill includes a total of 
almost $20 billion--$17.55 billion for the Federal-aid highway formula 
program, and $2.3 billion for those highway programs which are exempt 
from the obligation ceiling. Highway spending in fiscal year 1996 will 
be nearly $500 million higher than the comparable fiscal year 1995 
levels.
  In the transit area, the bill provides a total of slightly more than 
$4 billion, which includes $400 million for transit operating 
assistance; $666 million for transit new starts construction; and $333 
million for discretionary grants in the bus and bus-related facilities 
area.
  In the rail area, it should be pointed out that Amtrak has been 
provided a total of $635 million: $305 million will be for operating 
expenses; $230 million will be for Amtrak's capital purchases; and $100 
million is set aside for Amtrak's transition costs.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to point out to the Members 
that there were several provisions included by the Senate which were 
dropped in conference. The provision which designates the National 
Highway System was not included because the conferees were assured by 
both the chairman of the House authorizing committee, Mr. Shuster, and 
the chairman of the Senate authorizing committee, Mr. Chafee, that the 
conference on the National Highway System bill is making progress, 
though perhaps not as quickly as we had hoped, and that with passage of 
the NHS bill, States will soon be in receipt of the $5.4 billion in 
apportionments that are being held in abeyance pending enactment of the 
NHS.
  The conferees also agreed to drop a provision which allowed the 
States flexibility in dealing with an across-the-board cut contained in 
ISTEA known as section 1003. The National Highway System authorizing 
conferees have assured us that this issue, too, will be addressed in 
the NHS conference agreement.
  The Senate proposal regarding State-regional infrastructure banks has 
been deleted from the appropriations bill. However, I have it on good 
assurance from the chairmen of the House Transportation Infrastructure 
Committee, that the State infrastructure banks proposal, in a somewhat 
scaled-down form, will be included in the NHS conference agreement, and 
will allow both transit and highway projects to participate in the 
infrastructure bank program.
  I also want to inform the Members that the Senate proposal regarding 
air traffic controllers' revitalization pay, which would have phased 
out this 5-percent bonus over a 3-year period, has been deleted. The 
conferees heard from the administration and from many individual 
controllers that this would have a demoralizing effect on FAA 
personnel, and that the cut suggested by the Senate, $45 million, would 
have been especially detrimental as FAA institutes personnel reforms.
  Finally, I should point out that the House-initiated proposal which 
would have moved DOT employees on worker's compensation rolls to 
retirement rolls, upon eligibility, has been deleted, so that nothing 
in this bill affects employees' existing rights under worker's 
compensation and retirement rules.
  I want to thank all the Members of the conference for their support 
on reaching this agreement. I especially want to thank my ranking 
Member, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, for all his valuable 
time and insights in fashioning this conference agreement. I also want 
to acknowledge Mr. Frank Wolf of Virginia, who chaired the conference 
on behalf of the House and Mr. Coleman, the House ranking Member. I 
believe it was a spirited conference which was entered into in good 
faith. I believe all the conferees were interested in producing a bill 
which meets this year's difficult funding challenges in a fair and 
balanced way.
  Not at all incidentally, Mr. President, that, I believe, will be 
signed by the President of the United States and will not be a part of 
the disputes in which we are continually engaged.
  We have been told by the administration that the President will sign 
this bill upon receipt. As a result, I urge adoption of the conference 
report for H.R. 2002, Fiscal Year 1996 Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] 
is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2002, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1996.
  First, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington for his able 
work on the subcommittee and for managing the bill this morning. We 
worked together on many issues and it is a pleasure to be able to stand 
here with him this morning.
  I support this bill, but with considerable reluctance. When it comes 
to addressing the transportation needs of this country, this bill falls 
short. Yet, in many areas, fortunately, this bill does not accept some 
of the more draconian and counterproductive measures called for in the 
budget resolution or in the House bill. For that I am grateful.
  This conference agreement cuts $800 million in outlays from the 
fiscal year 1995 funding levels for the Department of Transportation. 
And, while it is over a half a billion dollars higher than the severe 
reductions called for under the Senate-passed budget resolution, it 
still signals a sizable disinvestment in our Federal transportation 
infrastructure.
  This is not the direction our country ought to be heading. Consider 
the fact that, between 1972 and 1990, the United States' public 
investment in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP ranked dead last of 
the six other G-7 nations. Among those nations that have the largest 
economies and the most power, we are last when it comes to investment 
in infrastructure. During the same period, the 1972 to 1990 period, the 
average productivity growth in the United States also ranked dead last.
  In recent years, Japan's investment in infrastructure as a percentage 
of its GDP was roughly three times that of the United States. To catch 
up even for 1 year, we would need to increase spending on 
infrastructure by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. This 
widening investment gap is bad news for America's ability to compete in 
the 21st century, and it undermines our ability to provide essential 
jobs that will raise living standards.
  Recognizing that reality, over 400 of our Nation's leading economists 
have urged our Government to increase public investment. With the 
extraordinary congestion that we face on our Nation's highways and 
runways across our country, we must do no less, even within the current 
budget environment.
  My remarks are in no way intended to reflect on the distinguished 
chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Hatfield. Those of us on the 
Transportation Subcommittee were extraordinarily fortunate earlier this 
year when our full committee chairman, 

[[Page S16352]]

Senator Hatfield, accepted the chairmanship of this subcommittee. I was 
delighted to hear that he made that decision. Throughout the year, he 
has skillfully guided the subcommittee through extensive hearings as 
well as an amicable markup and conference. Senator Hatfield 
demonstrated his characteristic fairmindedness, openness and good 
judgment throughout the process, and I am grateful for the 
considerations he gave to my concerns throughout the year.
  Separate from the funding levels contained in the bill, I am pleased 
to report that Senator Hatfield and I were successful in retaining in 
the conference agreement several of the important policy positions 
articulated in the Senate bill.
  As it relates to the Coast Guard, for instance, the conference 
agreement retains the provision allowing the commandant to realign his 
existing search and rescue stations, as well as reallocate billets 
throughout the Coast Guard to achieve his rebalancing goals.
  Under the provision, however, dozens of local communities will be 
spared the upheaval and the worry of losing their Coast Guard search 
and rescue presence entirely, and that includes several communities in 
New Jersey, in Oregon, and in several other States.
  The bill before us also includes the provisions for FAA personnel and 
procurement reform that was included in the Senate bill. Under this 
provision, absent the enactment of other legislation, the FAA 
Administrator will be authorized to reform his agency's personnel and 
procurement processes by April 1, 1996.
  Both the Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee are currently working on a comprehensive 
reform legislation for the FAA. In fact, I recently testified before 
the Commerce Committee on this legislation. It is my sincere hope that 
this legislation will be enacted and supersede the provisions in the 
appropriations bill.
  The issue of personnel and procurement reform is a very complex one 
that requires the input of all affected parties, including the air 
carriers, general aviation, the unions representing the FAA's 
employees, and others. I expect the language in the appropriations bill 
will continue to serve as a strong incentive--if I may characterize it 
as the pebble in the shoe--to bring all parties to the table to agree 
on necessary reforms, because I frankly think, as many do, that they 
are overdue.
  I should mention that, during conference committee deliberations on 
FAA personnel reform, both Congressman Coleman and myself sought to 
ensure that bill language would be included in the conference report 
ensuring that no new personnel scheme would be put into place that 
would bar the rights of FAA employees to be a member of the union.
  While we were only successful in including the relevant language in 
the statement of managers, I have obtained an assurance from Secretary 
Pena that absolutely no measures will be included in the FAA's 
personnel reform plan that will undermine the ability of FAA employees 
to be members of a union, just like other people who work for the 
companies in the country.
  Perhaps the most critical decision reached by the conferees as it 
relates to aviation is the final funding level for the FAA's operations 
account. The final funding level will be $4.646 billion--almost $50 
million more than the House-passed level and almost $100 million more 
than the level passed by the Senate.
  Mr. President, we have a wonderfully safe aviation system in this 
country. While we have all been disturbed by aviation accidents in 
recent months, a dispassionate review of the relevant statistics 
reveals that this past year was not one of the worst years for aviation 
safety. The fact is that usage of the air traffic control system 
continually grows but without the kinds of investment I believe is 
necessary to bring it up to the current and future needs.
  The funding level for this account was, perhaps, the greatest 
deficiency in the Senate-passed bill. As the transportation 
appropriations bill moved to conference, the administration made clear 
the priority it attached to adequate funding for FAA operations.
  It was a program that gave all the conferees, frankly, a great deal 
of worry.
  I am very pleased that the conferees found a way to fund this account 
at a level more closely resembling the President's request. 
Importantly, as part of this effort, we were able to eliminate the 
provision in the Senate bill imposing a 5-percent pay cut on air 
traffic controllers.
  Frankly, these people are under great stress, and great strain. The 
last thing that we need to do is worry them further by threatening 
their ability to attend to their personal and family needs.
  I am very pleased, especially during this period of heightened 
anxiety over the adequacy of our air traffic control system, that we 
are not imposing a pay cut on our already overworked air traffic 
controllers.
  There are several conference decisions with which I strongly 
disagree. I find it outrageous, quite frankly, that the Senate 
conferees receded to the House provision prohibiting the DOT from 
increasing the corporate average fuel economy standard in 1996.
  Simply put so everybody understands it, this provision will prohibit 
the DOT from requiring the manufacturers of light trucks--a very 
popular vehicle in America--from trying to do even slightly better in 
terms of fuel efficiency. Everyone sees the quantity of imported oil we 
bring into this country increasing. I think it is an outrageous 
condition for America--to be hostage to foreign suppliers. It is not 
the way we ought to be going, if we can avoid it. One way we can avoid 
it is by conserving more here.
  This provision is being forced through the process on an 
appropriations bill because it could not be adopted through 
freestanding legislation. While I was very disappointed in the outcome, 
I want to commend Senator Gorton for his leadership in sticking up for 
the Senate position on this item.
  Other areas of deep disappointment for me are the deep cuts included 
in the bill for transit formula assistance and pipeline safety 
activities. Transit operating assistance is being slashed by 44 
percent. To make matters worse, the conference agreement changes the 
formula in a way that poses an additional hardship on our major urban 
areas.
  Members need to be aware that a cut of this magnitude will 
necessitate service reductions and fare increases across the country. 
Every Senator will have constituents that will pay more money for less 
transit service. We are talking about longer waits for the bus to get 
home from work and more cars on our already congested highways.
  The Senate budget resolution called for transit operating subsidies 
to be phased out entirely. I hope that after the experience of a 44-
percent cut this year, my colleagues will join with me in saying that 
enough is enough. I hope that next year we can hold the line and stem 
the hemorrhage in this program.
  Last year's tragic pipeline explosion in Edison, NJ, served as a 
wake-up call for the entire Nation as to the need to beef up our 
efforts to ensure pipeline safety. Our Nation's pipeline infrastructure 
is aging rapidly. President Clinton's budget recognized this reality 
and requested a 13-percent increase for pipeline safety.
  The conferees, however, turned around and cut these activities 16 
percent below last year's level--a cut of 26 percent below the 
President's request. I only hope that it will not require another 
pipeline explosion with either massive pollution or loss of life to get 
my colleagues to recognize our extraordinary needs in this area.
  So once again, Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Hatfield for 
his consideration throughout the development of this conference 
agreement. My unhappiness with the bill does not reflect at all on his 
leadership. What it does say is that this country is not investing 
enough in its transportation infrastructure. By some accounts, the U.S. 
ranks 50th or worse in comparison to other industrialized nations, in 
terms of per capita investment in infrastructure. It is outrageous.
  Everybody knows that efficient transportation helps us move goods, 
helps us move people, helps us become more efficient, more competitive, 
and provide for a quality of life far better than that which is saddled 
with air pollution, delays caused by congestion, time away from family, 
and time away from business appointments.
  Mr. President, one of the things that we talked about and all of us 
feel so 

[[Page S16353]]

deeply here about is the diminution of the quality of life in our 
country, about how difficult it is for families to make a living where 
both mother and dad go out to work because it requires two workers to 
earn what one used to earn. Do you know who pays the heaviest price for 
that? It is the children. It is those who miss parental contact during 
the evening hours and the daytime hours.
  If this transportation system of ours continues to break down, 
continues to lack the ability to service our needs, it will impose an 
even heavier burden on the family. It is pretty simple.
  So, Mr. President, I am going to support this bill. It is the best 
that we could get done in the current budgetary environment. The 
administration has signaled definitively that President Clinton will 
sign this conference report.
  There are only 2 other appropriations bills that have been signed out 
of the 13 thus far. That is military construction and agriculture. We 
will look forward to having this bill signed. We also ask our 
colleagues who are in committees of jurisdiction--the Commerce 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I 
sit, to expedite their action on the transportation authorization 
bills. Those bills, like this bill, will be critical to the functioning 
of our country.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished senior 
Senators from West Virginia and Arizona wish to be heard on this issue, 
and I understand that each wishes that we have a recorded vote.
  Accordingly, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference committee 
report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from West Virginia 
[Mr. Byrd] is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I did not sign the conference report on the 
Transportation appropriations bill. Why did I not sign the conference 
report? I did not sign it because I thought that it was patently unfair 
in its treatment of rural States like my own State of West Virginia. 
Why did I think that it was patently unfair to rural States like my own 
State of West Virginia? Because it does not allow one single dollar for 
the earmark of highway projects--not one--while it proceeds to earmark 
$687 million for 31 rail transit projects in many areas of the country, 
and it also earmarks $333 million in 81 instances for buses and bus-
related facilities throughout the country. In other words, the 
conference report contains 112 earmarks amounting to over $1 billion 
for mass transit projects in urban areas and areas more densely 
populated, while it refuses to earmark one thin dime for areas that are 
not served by mass transit but which have to depend upon highways for 
the transportation of people and goods.
  Mr. President and Senators, lend me your ears! I come not to bury 
mass transit projects but to praise them. I compliment Senators and 
Members of the other body who have successfully made the case for 
earmarking mass transit and bus moneys for cities and towns in their 
States and congressional districts. They are doing exactly what they 
should be doing. I do not find fault with that. I come not to bury 
justified earmarks but to praise them. I have always believed that the 
elected representatives of the people in Congress, both Houses, are in 
a better position to know the needs of their constituents in the States 
and congressional districts they serve than is some unelected 
bureaucrat downtown who otherwise would make the arbitrary decisions as 
to how much and where transportation dollars will be spent.
  I have been in the Senate 37 years, and I have been a member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee throughout all of those 37 years. I was 
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over this bill. I was chairman 
of that Subcommittee on Transportation from March 31, 1971, to July 18, 
1975--in other words, over 4 years. I served as chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee for 6 years during the 101st, 102d and the 
103d Congresses, and I never--never--opposed the earmarking of 
appropriate moneys for rail and other mass transit projects. At the 
same time, I have also supported the earmarking of moneys for 
meritorious highway projects, not just in West Virginia but throughout 
the United States. Yet, in this conference report on appropriations for 
transportation, highway projects are blatantly--blatantly--
discriminated against. There is not one copper penny--not one--not one 
copper penny for highway projects.
  Is that wise? Is that good national transportation policy? Are 
highways not an important part of the national transportation system?
  When the Transportation appropriations bill was passed by the Senate, 
it contained $39.5 million for nine highway demonstration projects 
throughout the country. One of these projects, costing $9 million, was 
in West Virginia.
  Mr. President, $39.5 million for highway transportation projects is 
mere chicken feed--chicken feed--as compared with $1 billion for mass 
transit and bus transportation; yet, it was at least chicken feed. The 
House conferees on the Transportation appropriations bill took the 
position that no moneys--none--no moneys could be earmarked for 
highways. No matter how needed, highway projects were to get zero 
dollars--zero dollars! A policy had been laid down by the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee chairman that there would be no highway 
funds earmarked at all--none! It is my understanding that several 
Members of the House of Representatives sought to have funding for 
highway projects included in the bill, but they were confronted with 
the policy that was to be the rule of thumb, the line in the sand--no 
highway projects; none!
  There have been news reports that earmarkings were being done away 
with in the Transportation bill; there would be no more such 
earmarkings. The so-called ``pork-busters'' breathed a sigh of relief--
hallelujah! No earmarks! Henceforth, highway moneys should be 
distributed strictly by formula. Thus, a level playing field, it was 
claimed, was being created for the distribution of highway dollars. A 
new breed of legislator was in the saddle. Move over, John Wayne, a new 
breed of legislator was in the saddle. ``Down with earmarks'' was the 
battle cry!
  Yet, Mr. President, earmarking is not dead. It is very much alive and 
is more robust than ever. And the Transportation appropriations 
conference report is proof of it with $1,020,000,000--that is $1 for 
every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$1,020,000,000 for rail and 
other mass transit projects, all earmarked in this conference report, 
all earmarked.

  Mr. President, I come not to bury earmarks, but to praise them. In 
this particular bill I support every earmark. But as one who, while 
serving on the Appropriations Committee for 37 years, has never 
objected to the practice of earmarking, I ask, what justice--what 
justice--is there in a transportation policy that blatantly 
discriminates against highways? What wisdom, what reasonableness, what 
sweet reasonableness, what logic can there be in a transportation 
policy which says, ``Come one, come all'' to earmarks for mass transit, 
but which completely closes the door--closes the door--to highways. How 
sanctimonious can we get? On the one hand we say we have done away with 
earmarks in the bill; on the other hand, the bill is full of earmarks. 
This is sheer hypocrisy, sheer hypocrisy.
  There is also a $200 million appropriation in this conference report 
for the Washington metro system. Now, I do not regret that. I do not 
oppose that funding. I have supported the funding for this Metro mass 
transit system in the past. Last year there was $200 million; the year 
before that, there was $200 million, and I believe the year before 
that, there was $170 million for the Washington metropolitan transit 
system. Fine. I have no problem with that. Thus, ``I am constant as the 
northern star, of whose true fix'd and resting quality there is no 
fellow in the firmament.'' Hence, Mr. President, I come 

[[Page S16354]]

not to bury the Washington metropolitan transit system, but to praise 
it.
  I have been much criticized in past years for getting earmarks for 
highway projects in West Virginia. The cynics call these highway 
projects ``pork.'' Are mass transit projects pork? I ask you, Mr. 
President, are mass transit projects pork? Whether we talk about mass 
transit or whether we talk about highways, these all constitute 
infrastructure. And infrastructure is important to the country and the 
country's economy. Both mass transit and highways are important and 
vital components of the national transportation system. Mass transit 
can be adapted to certain areas of the country, but not all areas. Some 
areas simply must depend for the most part upon highways.
  Why should areas that can only be served by highways be deprived? Why 
should they be denied Federal highway dollars? Are rural areas not a 
part of America? Are the taxpayers who live in rural areas not 
Americans, too? Are not their tax dollars just as good as the tax 
dollars of those who live in urban areas, mass transit areas? A 
transportation policy that proclaims to the skies that earmarks are 
evil is a sanctimonious and hypocritical transportation policy when it 
pronounces the sentence of death on one particular kind of 
transportation earmarks, while loading the bill down with earmarks for 
other transportation modes. Such a transportation policy, Mr. 
President, is not only unfair, it is also unwise. It is penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. Monies spent on highways provide not only short-term 
jobs but also result in long-term financial returns for the whole 
national economy, many times over.
  Now, the ancient Persians knew this. Darius Hystaspes--the Great--
paid great heed to roads, which he greatly extended and improved.
  The Egyptians, the Carthaginians, and the Etruscans all built roads. 
They did not have mass transit. They did not have buses. They built 
roads.
  The truly great road builders were the Romans. We have all heard that 
all roads lead to Rome. The Romans knew how to lay down a solid base 
and how to give the road a pavement of flat stones. They knew that the 
road must have a crown, that it must be higher in the middle so as to 
drain water away, and that ditches should be dug alongside to carry 
away the water. Some Roman roads are still in use even today. And every 
Senator, I am sure, who has visited Rome and traveled out to Tivoli, 
for example, has traveled on old Roman roads, built 2,000 years ago.

     Great roads the Romans built that men might meet,
     And walls to keep strong men apart, secure;
     Now centuries are gone, and in defeat,
     The walls are fallen, but the roads endure.

  Now, by contrast, early roads in America were very poor. The trip 
from New York to Boston in colonial days was truly an adventure. You 
can say that about some of the roads in West Virginia as well--even 
today. When I was in the State legislature 50 years ago, almost 50 
years ago, 48 years ago, West Virginia had less than 10 miles of 
divided highways.
  In the early 1800's, settlers were moving in great numbers to the 
West. In 1811, work was begun on a road that led away from Cumberland, 
MD, toward the West. It was to reach as far west as Vandalia, IL. This 
was the National Road, the old Cumberland Road. And I am sure that the 
Presiding Officer, Senator Campbell, who presides over the Senate today 
with a degree of skill and dignity that ``is so rare as a day in 
June,'' has traveled with his motorcycle over that old Cumberland Road. 
The Chair is not supposed to respond, but I see him smiling.
  Well, this was the National Road, the old Cumberland Road. For many 
years it was the chief line of travel for thousands of settlers on 
their way to the West. Before 1838, Congress had spent nearly $3 
million--think of it; Congress had spent nearly $3 million--of Federal 
funds on that road. Henry Clay was a strong proponent of getting 
Congress to advance money for building the road. O that Henry Clay were 
a Member of this Senate today! Or a Member of the other body today--he 
served in both bodies; he was once Speaker of the House. O that he were 
here today to plead the cause of highways! He who advocated his 
national system of public improvements that made sense, and they still 
make sense today. Henry Clay was a strong proponent of getting Congress 
to advance money for building that road.
  I find it ironic, Mr. President, that the ancients--the Persians, the 
Etruscans, the Egyptians, the Carthaginians--knew the importance of 
having good roads and sought to expand their network of roads, yet, we 
in the Congress, the present-day beneficiaries of the lessons of 
history, look upon highways with disdain, as evidenced by this 
transportation appropriations conference report.
  There were other voices, Mr. President, not so ancient which also may 
be summoned in support of building transportation infrastructure. 
Thomas Babington Macaulay said: ``Of all inventions, the alphabet and 
the printing press alone excepted, those inventions which abridge 
distance have done most for the civilization of our species. Every 
improvement of the means of locomotion benefits mankind morally and 
intellectually, as well as materially, and not only facilitates the 
interchange of the various productions of nature and art, but tends to 
remove national and provincial antipathies, and to bring together all 
of the branches of the great human family.'' That was Thomas Macaulay.
  Francis Bacon, a great English Chancellor, a farsighted and learned 
man, said: ``There be three things which make a nation great and 
prosperous: a fertile soil; busy workshops; easy conveyance for men and 
goods from place to place.''
  Mr. President, I was in the House of Representatives when President 
Eisenhower advocated the Interstate Highway System, and I supported it. 
I was a Member of the U.S. Senate and supported the creation of the 
Appalachian Regional Commission and the establishment of the network of 
Appalachian Regional Corridors. I have also consistently supported 
Federal funding in sharing the costs of building those corridors 
because of the particular and unique needs of the 13 States in 
Appalachia.
  When the Democrats were in control of the Senate during the years 
1989 through 1994, I provided allocations, as chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, that would result in the funding of 
transportation projects across the board--mass transit, bus and bus-
related facilities, as well as highways--and throughout the entire 
country. I never took the position that allocations of funds should be 
for highways only, I never took the position that allocations of funds 
should be only for West Virginia, and that earmarks for other 
transportation modes should be eliminated or done away with. I 
recognized that a national transportation policy--that is what we are 
talking about, a national transportation policy--should include several 
different systems--not just one or two, but several, meaning more than 
two--highways, mass transit, and otherwise. But that is not the way 
things are to be done now that the tables have turned. For some 
unfathomable reason--and ``unfathomable'' goes deeper than the deepest 
part of the broad Pacific Ocean--highways have been left out! Out! Out! 
Out with highways!
  Mr. President, during a 12-year period, 1973 to 1985, the United 
States invested three-tenths of 1 percent of its gross domestic product 
in infrastructure annually; during a 12-year period, the United States 
invested three-tenths of 1 percent of its gross domestic product in 
infrastructure annually. Canada, meanwhile, invested 1.5 percent; the 
United Kingdom 1.3 percent; France invested 2 percent; the then Federal 
Republic of Germany invested 2.5 percent; Italy invested 2.7 percent; 
Japan invested 5.1 percent of its gross domestic product in 
infrastructure annually during that 12-year period. How did that 
correspond with those same countries' productivity? While the United 
States was investing only three-tenths of 1 percent of its gross 
domestic product annually in infrastructure, its productivity grew only 
six-tenths of 1 percent annually, on the average. In other words, less 
than 1 percent.
  Canada invested 1.5 percent and experienced productivity growth of 
1.3 percent. The United Kingdom invested 1.8 percent and had 1.8 
percent productivity growth. France invested 2 percent and grew 2.3 
percent. The Federal Republic of Germany invested 2.5 percent and 
enjoyed 2.4 percent productivity 

[[Page S16355]]

growth annually. Italy invested 2.7 percent, which yielded productivity 
growth of 1.8 percent. In Japan, productivity growth was 3 percent, 
while it invested 5.1 percent of its gross domestic product in 
infrastructure.
  So we can see that nondefense public investment translates into 
increased productivity. Increased productivity means increased economic 
growth. Increased economic growth means more jobs and, thus, more 
income for the U.S. Treasury. Increased economic growth also means 
increased national security. It also means an enhanced competitive 
position for the Nation. It means a higher standard of living. And 
increased public investment also encourages increased private 
investment. And why not? Why would it not?
  Mr. President, if you had a company, let us say, and you would like 
to buy a brand-spanking-new fleet of trucks, all outfitted in bright 
red paint and chrome, how would you like to put that fleet of new 
trucks out on roads that are filled with potholes and on bridges in 
need of repair? How would you like to have your trucks detoured 15, 18, 
20 miles around a bridge that was closed because it was unsafe? How 
much would that cost? How much would it cost you? How much would that 
lower your productivity? How much would that cut into your profits? You 
probably would be reluctant to invest in the new trucks at all.
  Hence, public investment encourages private investment and is 
conducive to the profitability of the private sector. Dollars spent on 
highways not only improve the efficiency, and hence the productivity 
and economic growth of a region, but they also improve safety on the 
highways. The decision to eliminate highway funding earmarks in this 
legislation just does not make sense in terms of our economic growth, 
our productivity growth, our Nation's transportation needs, our 
people's safety, or an overall viable transportation policy for this 
Nation.

  Why, then, was such a decision made? What is really going on in this 
bill with regard to highway projects? What could possibly justify such 
an arbitrary and shortsighted view of our Nation's transportation needs 
so as to prompt a total--total--blackballing of highway projects?
  In my view, such a tunnel-vision approach could not be engendered by 
any reasonable contemplation of what makes for sound national 
transportation policy.
  What is going on here is simple knee-jerk politics. It is a large 
fandango aimed at appearing to be ``pure'' on the subject of 
transportation pork, a large fandango aimed at appearing to be pure on 
the subject of transportation pork. Highway demos have, over the years, 
gotten a reputation which, in my view, is largely undeserved. Now that 
bad reputation is being exploited for political gain--for political 
reasons.
  In news story after news story, highway earmarks have been portrayed 
as a useless waste of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. They exist 
only to promote the reputation and electability of the politician who 
does the earmarking, so the story goes. Thus, to appear to be virtuous 
on the subject of pork, one needs to be tough on that Satan of 
spending, that Beelzebub of budgeting, the demon of deficits--highway 
demos.
  If one is sufficiently vociferous in stomping the serpent of highway 
demos, then one can earmark bus and mass transit projects with random 
abandon. We have banished evil from the kingdom! Now vice can flourish! 
Hallelujah, how sweet it is! Evil has been banished from the kingdom.
  Make no mistake about it, targeting moneys to a specific locality is 
earmarking. That is what has been done in the case of mass transit and 
bus moneys in this bill. That is earmarking. If it moos, gives milk, 
and has an udder, it is undoubtedly a cow--even if one insists on 
saddling it like a horse. It is still a cow. If it barks, wags its 
tail, and lifts its leg, it is a dog, no matter how loudly one claims 
that it thrives only on cat food.
  An earmark is an earmark is an earmark is an earmark and no amount of 
obfuscation can change that.
  The conference agreement before us will provide $1.665 billion in 
discretionary grants for mass transit. Not one penny--not one penny--of 
that amount will go to West Virginia. Not one. Mr. President, $1.665 
billion in discretionary grants for mass transit. Within this amount, 
roughly $665 million will go out by formula to the major rail transit 
systems in our major urban cities. West Virginia will not see any of 
that funding.
  West Virginia is not alone. There are other States, as well.
  The remaining $1 billion provided for transit discretionary grants in 
this conference agreement have been completely earmarked--completely 
earmarked--by the conferees. This includes $333 million in grants for 
bus and bus-related facilities. Yet, there are only two bus grants that 
are expressly authorized to receive appropriated funds in the bus 
category--a grant for the State of Michigan and a grant for Altoona, 
PA. However, the conferees saw fit to earmark every penny of the funds 
available for bus and bus-related facilities, for a total of 81 
projects.
  It has not always been the custom to earmark the entire pot of bus 
funds. Under section 3 of the Transit Act, these funds are to be 
distributed based on a merit-based competition conducted by the Federal 
Transit Administration. Indeed, there are currently applications 
sitting at the Federal Transit Administration for more than half a 
billion dollars in bus grants. The applications are there. However, not 
one--not one--of these applications will be entertained in the coming 
year.
  Why? Because every penny has already been earmarked by the conferees. 
Just 2 years ago, roughly 30 percent of the funds available for bus and 
bus facilities were distributed by competition. Four years ago, roughly 
half the funds were distributed based on competition. In the years 
before that, the Congress earmarked anywhere between 9 percent and 28 
percent of the total amount of funding available for bus grants. The 
conference report before us provides $687 million for so-called transit 
new starts--$687 million for so-called transit new starts. These are 
major construction projects for new, expanded transit systems in our 
major urban centers.
  The conference report agreement earmarks every penny made available 
under this account for 31 cities across the country. This is true 
despite the fact that the administration saw fit to request funding for 
only 12 cities.
  Now, I know that it will be claimed that the Nation's highway needs 
can be completely provided for by formula funding. Just do it all by 
formula. Just mathematically dribble out highway dollars under an 
agreed-upon formula. No deviations, please. We have all the highway 
needs of every State completely scoped out, packaged and arithmetically 
calculated, all by formula.
  How utterly preposterous! How convenient for some States and how 
detrimental for others.
  It should not come as a revelation to anybody that different States 
have different topographies. Some are flat. Some are hilly. Some are 
mountainous. Some are both flat and hilly. Some are both flat and 
mountainous. It should also not come as an intuitive flash of genius to 
anyone that the economies of the States are different. Some are rural. 
Some are agricultural. Others are urban centers. Some are dependent 
upon industry. Many State economies have a combination of both or all 
of these.

  If one understands these quite obvious and undeniable geographic and 
economic differences that exist among the States, it then follows that 
some States will need more mass transit money, or more bus money, or 
more highway money than others. It also then becomes apparent that an 
exclusively formula-driven approach to highway funding is not going to 
address the highway needs of each and every State. It costs from $10 to 
$18 million a mile to build four-lane highways in the State of West 
Virginia. We have mountains, more than a million hills and mountains in 
West Virginia. It also, then, becomes apparent that an exclusively 
formula-driven approach to highway funding is not going to address the 
highway needs of each and every State.
  Thus, the reason for earmarking of highway dollars--in order to 
address the deficiencies of the Federal highway formula in certain 
States--can easily be understood, can easily be understood by those who 
want to understand.

[[Page S16356]]

  Take a State like West Virginia. We are mostly rural, heavily 
forested, very mountainous, have very little flat land and few cities 
of any size. We have few airports, sparse airline service, and heavy 
fog which frequently impairs landings and takeoffs.
  West Virginia receives almost no funding from the $1.5 billion 
airport improvement program. The most formula funding that my State of 
West Virginia has ever received from that program was $4.3 million in 1 
year. West Virginia ranks 49th in the Nation in the number of air 
passengers.
  I do not like to ride airplanes. When I was a little boy I would 
write to all of the companies that were advertising in publications 
that had anything to do with aviation. I thought someday I would like 
to be an aviator, and sail through the clouds with the greatest of 
ease. It did not work out like that. I am not so wild about flying 
anymore.
  So we are 49th among the States with reference to air passengers. 
Compare that to the Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport that has received more 
than $100 million in a single year for the expansion of that airport 
from the Airport Improvement Program. Is that pork?
  The airport in Charleston, West Virginia--probably the State's 
busiest airport--was built by hacking off the top of several mountain 
peaks, shoving that dirt into the valleys and then smoothing and 
leveling that newly-created surface to make a runway. On a foggy 
morning, taking off or landing at Charleston can be an exciting 
experience. And it can also be a fatal one, as we have seen. So, there 
are not large airports, and therefore, some businesses are reluctant to 
come to my State because of that drawback. Likewise, blasting through 
mountains, building tunnels through mountains--John Henry has been dead 
a long, long time--blasting tunnels through mountains, under valleys 
and riverbeds in order to build tunnels for mass transit is not 
extremely practical, to say the least. We have almost no mass transit 
activity in West Virginia. Can you imagine speed rail transit in West 
Virginia?
  We have almost no mass transit. Of the $2.5 billion that was 
distributed by formula to the States for mass transit assistance in 
fiscal year 1995, guess how much West Virginia received? Of the $2.5 
billion, West Virginia received less than $650,000. It received 
$642,000, less than $1 million out of $2.5 billion. That is why we need 
highways. I know they are looked upon with scorn in some quarters. But 
West Virginia is part of the Union, the only State that was torn from 
another State in the throes of a great Civil War. It became a Union 
State in 1863.
  For this coming fiscal year, the conference agreement will lower that 
level of assistance to West Virginia to $515,000. Out of the $2.5 
billion, West Virginia will get a half-million. Think of it. I am not 
complaining about that. God, in his masterful design, in all of that 
process of creation, made West Virginia mountainous, so we do not have 
mass transit. We have to depend upon highways. West Virginia, 
therefore, receives very little mass transit money, no new airport 
funds, and is, therefore, left almost completely dependent upon highway 
funds to satisfy its transportation needs.
  Come on, pork busters! Go with me to West Virginia! For commerce, for 
tourist travel, travel by people within the State and by people passing 
through on their way to somewhere else, means, for the most part, 
highway travel, and we need highways. Highways are West Virginia's only 
ticket--only ticket to economic development.
  My State is a poor State. Thank God for West Virginia. It is a land 
of mountains by God's great will, and it produces mountain men and 
women. Yes, it is a poor State, always has been, trampled by outside 
interests. One day I will talk about the great coal barons who lived 
outside the State but who took the State's resources with the blood and 
the sweat and the tears of mountaineers who helped to build those 
fortunes for the absentee owners. So, my State is a poor State, and 
without adequate highways we will always remain so.
  Then, there is the issue of safety. That affects everybody. I was in 
one head-on collision in West Virginia, on West Virginia State Route 2, 
in which the driver of the other car was killed.
  Safety is important. Again, let us look at my State of West Virginia. 
As I have said, there is very little flat land. We have roads in some 
areas that have more hairpin curves than they do straight stretches. 
They are narrow winding, twisting roads, snaking around and over 
mountains and up and down steep valleys. In the rain, in the snow, in 
the dark, in the fog, it is quite a harrowing ride in many parts of 
West Virginia. Lives have been lost again and again because of these 
narrow, two-lane, twisting ribbons that criss-cross my State. I know. I 
have traversed almost all of them at some time or other.
  It would be an education for some Members to travel with me on some 
rainy night in the fog when the headlights barely penetrate a car 
length. Perhaps I should invite some of the opponents of highway money 
to ride along with me, so that they might enjoy the full flavor of 
unimproved, two-lane mountain highways. I daresay their antiperspirant 
would fail them. Maybe then--just maybe--a little sympathy might be 
forthcoming with regard to those evil highway projects.
  This is what my people endure daily in West Virginia. This is what 
travelers passing through my State contend with. This is what truck 
drivers--whose time is money--have to deal with when they take a load 
through West Virginia.
  But, what is West Virginia in the grand scheme of things? We are 
small. We are poor. Who cares about our safety or our economic plight? 
Maybe we should just crawl back into our hollows and mountain caves and 
stop bothering everybody.
  A patchwork quilt of a nation, where some States thrive and others 
wither, is not a prescription for a strong national economy. An 
unbalanced transportation policy, like the one promulgated in this 
conference report, is a major contributor to that checkered economic 
picture, and it will not serve this Nation well.
  So we can beat our breasts. We can beat our breasts and proclaim to 
the highest heavens that we have eliminated the earmarks in this bill. 
But that claim is false. The earmarks are there. They are a little 
disguised perhaps, but they are there.
  We can wave our swords and rejoice that we have slain the dragon of 
highway demos in this bill. That claim is true. But, that dragon is not 
a dragon at all, and slaying it will only result in the killing of the 
economic hopes of rural states dependent on highways for prosperity.
  Mr. President, Daniel Webster made my case in 1830 in his second 
reply to Hayne. On Tuesday, January 26, 1830, he said,

       . . . I look upon a road over the Alleghanies--

  He was talking about West Virginia except West Virginia was not a 
State at that time.

       . . . I look upon a road over the Alleghanies--

  This is not Robert C. Byrd talking; this is Daniel Webster, the god-
like Daniel.

       . . . I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal 
     round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
     Atlantic to the Western waters.

  He did not limit it to just one mode of transportation. He was 
talking about them all. He said,

       . . . I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal 
     round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
     Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an object large and 
     extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common 
     benefit. . . . We [New Englanders] look upon the states, not 
     as separated, but as united . . . We do not impose 
     geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do 
     not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to 
     find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not 
     benefit us . . . if I were to stand up here and ask, what 
     interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina? I 
     should not be willing to face my constituents. These same 
     narrow-minded men would tell me, that they had sent me to act 
     for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little 
     comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who was 
     not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace the 
     whole, was not fit to be entrusted with the interest of any 
     part.

  That was Daniel Webster. O that we had Webster, or Clay, or both of 
them in the Senate today. Or in the other body, because they saw beyond 
the horizon. They saw beyond the geographical limitations, beyond the 
lines of latitude and the rivers and the ridges of the mountains. They 
saw a great 

[[Page S16357]]

country benefiting by that which benefited one part.
  Mr. President, I do not ask others to vote against this conference 
report. As I say, I support every mass transit earmark in the 
conference report. I support every bus and bus facility earmark in the 
conference report. I do not come to bury earmarks, Mr. President. I 
come to praise them. But I will vote against this conference report.
  We are one country, Mr. President, and we ought to have a 
transportation policy that adequately addresses the needs of the whole 
country. The bill before us falls far short of that laudable goal.
  I shall vote against this conference report in protest of the unwise 
transportation policy that is embraced in this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing earmarks 
provided for bus and bus-related facilities, and one showing earmarks 
for mass transit systems, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                     Bus and bus-related facilities

       The conference agreement provides $333,000,000 for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities. The conferees agree that the recommended funding 
     should be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Project location and purpose       House        Senate     Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas:                                                               
  Little Rock, central Arkansas                                         
   transit transfer facility.....            0   $1,000,000            0
  Fayetteville, intermodal                                              
   transfer facility.............            0    5,400,000            0
  State of Arkansas; buses.......   $6,000,000            0   $6,200,000
California:                                                             
  Coachella Valley; SunLine bus                                         
   facility......................    1,000,000            0      500,000
  Long Beach, bus replacement and                                       
   parts.........................            0    3,000,000    1,500,000
  Los Angeles; Gateway intermodal                                       
   center........................    8,000,000   15,000,000    8,000,000
  San Diego, San Ysidro                                                 
   intermodal center.............            0   10,000,000    5,000,000
  San Francisco; buses...........   13,480,000            0    6,740,000
  San Francisco, BART ADA                                               
   compliance/paratransit........            0    4,460,000    2,230,000
  San Gabriel Valley; Foothill                                          
   bus facilities................   12,500,000            0    9,750,000
  San Joaquin, RTD replacement...            0   10,560,000    5,280,000
  Santa Cruz; bus facility.......    3,000,000            0    1,500,000
  Sonoma County; park and ride                                          
   facilities....................    2,500,000            0    1,250,000
  Ventura County; bus facility...    1,200,000            0      600,000
  Yolo County; buses.............    3,000,000            0    1,500,000
Colorado: Fort Collins and                                              
 Greeley; buses..................    2,500,000            0    1,250,000
Connecticut: Norwich; intermodal                                        
 center..........................    3,000,000            0    1,500,000
Delaware: State of Delaware;                                            
 buses...........................    2,700,000            0    1,350,000
Florida:                                                                
  Metropolitan Dade County; buses    4,000,000   16,000,000   10,000,000
  Orlando; Lynx buses and bus                                           
   operating facility............    8,500,000            0    4,250,000
  Palm Beach County; bus facility    4,000,000            0    2,000,000
  Volusia County; buses and park                                        
   and ride facility.............    2,500,000            0    1,250,000
Georgia: Atlanta; buses..........    7,500,000            0    3,750,000
Hawaii: Honolulu, Oahu; Kuakini                                         
 medical center parking facility.            0    8,000,000    4,000,000
Iowa:                                                                   
  Ames, Marshalltown, Ottumwa,                                          
   Regions 6, 14, 15, 16; buses                                         
   and bus facilities............    4,000,000            0    2,350,000
  Cedar Rapids; hybrid electric                                         
   bus consortium................            0    2,960,000    1,200,000
  Ottumwa; global positioning                                           
   equipment.....................            0      700,000            0
  Waterloo; intermodal bus                                              
   facility......................            0    1,340,000      670,000
  State of Iowa; buses,                                                 
   equipment, and facilities.....            0    8,000,000    4,280,000
Illinois:                                                               
  Chicago replacement buses/                                            
   communications system.........            0   13,700,000            0
  State of Illinois; buses.......   20,000,000            0   16,850,000
Indiana:                                                                
  Gary and Hammond; buses........      520,000            0      260,000
  South Bend; intermodal facility    5,000,000            0    2,500,000
  State of Indiana; buses and bus                                       
   facilities....................   13,000,000            0    6,500,000
Kentucky: Lexington; buses.......    2,000,000            0    1,000,000
Louisiana:                                                              
  New Orleans; bus facility......    6,000,000            0    3,000,000
  New Orleans; buses.............   12,000,000            0    6,000,000
  Saint Barnard Parish;                                                 
   intermodal facility...........    3,000,000            0    1,500,000
Massachusetts: Worcester;                                               
 intermodal center...............    4,000,000            0    2,000,000
Maryland: Maryland Transit                                              
 authority, Maryland; buses......   10,000,000   16,000,000   13,000,000
Michigan:                                                               
  Lansing intermodal                                                    
   transportation center.........            0    4,180,000    2,090,000
  State of Michigan; ISTEA set-                                         
   aside requirement.............   10,000,000   10,000,000   10,000,000
Minnesota: Metropolitan Council,                                        
 Minnesota; articulated buses....   15,000,000            0    7,500,000
Missouri:                                                               
  Kansas City; Union Station                                            
   intermodal....................            0   13,000,000    6,500,000
  St. Louis; Metrolink bus                                              
   purchase......................            0   10,000,000    3,500,000
  State of Missouri; buses and                                          
   bus facilities................            0   11,000,000    7,000,000
North Carolina: State of North                                          
 Carolina; buses and bus                                                
 facilities......................   10,000,000            0    5,000,000
New Jersey:                                                             
  Garden State Parkway; park-n-                                         
   ride at interchange 165.......            0    2,300,000    1,150,000
  Hamilton Township; intermodal                                         
   facility/bus maintenance......            0   25,000,000   12,500,000
Nevada: Clark County, Nevada;                                           
 buses and bus facility..........   14,000,000   20,000,000   17,000,000
New York:                                                               
  Albany; buses..................            0   10,000,000    5,000,000
  Buffalo; Crossroads intermodal                                        
   station.......................    1,000,000            0      500,000
  Long Island; buses.............            0    3,000,000    1,500,000
  New Rochelle; intermodal                                              
   facility......................    1,500,000            0      750,000
  New York City; natural gas                                            
   buses/fueling station.........            0   10,000,000    5,000,000
  Rensselaer; intermodal station.    7,500,000    7,500,000    7,500,000
  Rochester-Genessee; buses......            0    1,400,000      700,000
  Syracuse; buses................    2,000,000            0    1,000,000
  Syracuse; intermodal station...    2,000,000            0    1,000,000
  Utica; buses...................            0    6,000,000    3,000,000
  Westchester; bus facility......    4,500,000            0    2,250,000
Ohio:                                                                   
  Cleveland; Triskett bus                                               
   facility......................    2,500,000            0    1,250,000
  Columbia; buses................            0   10,000,000            0
  State of Ohio; buses and bus                                          
   facilities....................   20,000,000            0   15,000,000
Oregon:                                                                 
  Wilsonville; transit vehicles..            0      500,000      250,000
  Eugene lane transit district;                                         
   radio system..................            0    1,300,000      650,000
Pennsylvania:                                                           
  Allegheny County; busway system    8,000,000   10,000,000    9,000,000
  Altoona; ISTEA set-aside                                              
   requirement...................    2,000,000            0    1,000,000
  Beaver County; bus facility....    1,600,000    3,300,000    2,450,000
  Erie; intermodal complex.......            0    8,000,000    4,000,000
  North Philadelphia; intermodal                                        
   center........................    6,000,000            0    3,000,000
  Philadelphia; buses............    3,000,000            0    1,500,000
  Philadelphia; Chestnut Street/                                        
   alternative fueled vehicles...            0    2,000,000    1,000,000
  Philadelphia; lift-equipped                                           
   buses.........................   15,000,000            0    7,500,000
Tennessee: Nashville, Tennessee;                                        
 electric buses..................      600,000            0      300,000
Texas:                                                                  
  Corpus Christi; buses,                                                
   dispatching system, and                                              
   facilities....................            0    1,600,000    2,450,000
  Corpus Christi; bus facilities.    2,500,000            0            0
  El Paso; buses, equipment and                                         
   facilities....................    6,000,000            0    5,200,000
  El Paso; bus equipment.........    2,900,000            0            0
  El Paso; satellite transit                                            
   terminal......................    1,500,000            0            0
  Robstown/Corpus Christi bus                                           
   shelters/curb cuts/transit                                           
   center........................            0      800,000            0
Utah: Utah Transit Authority,                                           
 Utah; buses.....................    3,500,000            0    1,750,000
Virginia: Richmond; downtown                                            
 intermodal station..............            0   10,000,000    5,000,000
Vermont:                                                                
  State of Vermont; buses and bus                                       
   facilities....................            0    6,000,000    3,000,000
  Marble Valley; bus upgrades....            0    2,000,000    1,000,000
Washington:                                                             
  Everett; intermodal center.....            0    7,000,000    3,500,000
  Pierce County; Tacoma Dome                                            
   station.......................    3,000,000    5,000,000    5,000,000
  Seattle; Metro/King County                                            
   multimodal....................            0    4,000,000    2,000,000
  Seattle/King County; Seattle                                          
   metro bus purchase............    2,500,000   10,000,000    6,250,000
  Wenatchee; Chelan-Douglas                                             
   multimodal....................            0    2,000,000            0
Wisconsin: State of Wisconsin;                                          
 buses...........................   20,000,000            0   10,000,000
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................  333,000,000  333,000,000  333,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The conference agreement provides for the following 
     distribution of the recommended funding for mass transit 
     systems as follows:

        Project                                                  Amount
Atlanta-North Springs project...............................$42,410,000
South Boston Piers (MOS-2) project...........................20,060,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project..................2,250,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project......1,000,000
Dallas South Oak Cliff LRT project...........................16,941,000
DART North Central light rail extension project...............3,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project............................6,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter rail project.....................10,000,000
Houston Regional Bus project.................................22,630,000
Jacksonville ASE extension project............................9,720,625
Los Angeles Metro Rail (MOS-3)...............................85,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego commuter rail project...................8,500,000
MARC commuter rail project...................................10,000,000
Maryland Central Corridor LRT project........................15,315,000
Miami-North 27th Avenue project...............................2,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail Plan.........................1,250,000
New Jersey Urban Core-Secaucus project.......................80,250,000
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor project.....................5,000,000
New York Queens Connection project..........................126,725,125
Pittsburgh Airport Phase 1 project...........................22,630,000
Portland-Westside LRT project...............................130,140,000
Sacramento LRT extension project..............................2,000,000
St. Louis Metro Link LRT project.............................12,500,000
Salt Lake City light rail project.............................9,759,500
San Francisco BART extension project.........................10,000,000
San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren Urbano project.....................7,500,000
Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project.........................500,000
Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New York..................2,500,000
Wisconsin central commuter project...........................14,400,000
Burlington-Charlotte, Vermont commuter rail project...........5,650,000


                      south-north corridor project

       The conferees note that the Oregon legislature and Portland 
     area voters have approved $850 million in local and state 
     funds for the South-North corridor project. The conferees 
     support the inclusion of the South-North corridor in the 
     Portland area program of interrelated projects and note that 
     a project financing plan, based on a discretionary (section 
     3) share of fifty percent of the total 

[[Page S16358]]

     project costs, will be considered should the Portland region 
     seek funding for this project.


                       orange county, california

       The conferees are concerned with the delay of the Federal 
     Transit Administration in obligating the funds previously 
     provided in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 for the Orange County 
     Transitway project. The conferees are concerned that the FTA 
     may fail to recognize that the Anaheim Intermodal 
     Transportation Center is not an element of the Transitway 
     project. The conferees, therefore, direct the FTA to work 
     expeditiously to obligate these funds once all pending 
     planning and financial issues are addressed adequately.


                              kansas city

       Although no funds have been provided for the Kansas City, 
     Missouri light rail project, the conferees believe that based 
     on the results of the recently completed major investment 
     study, the project may have merit and therefore encourage 
     project sponsors to continue to seek federal support in the 
     future.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________