[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16359-S16364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to praise the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee. The conference report they have brought to Senate 
demonstrates their hard work.
  Although I would have dealt with some specific issues differently 
than the conferees did, they deserve our praise.
  However, Mr. President, I do want to comment specifically on a few 
matters contained in the bill.
  First, the House bill as passed contained numerous provisions making 
appropriations for certain projects contingent upon authorization. I am 
disappointed that this language was dropped in conference.
  If we are going to continue to appropriate funds for unauthorized 
projects--I would hope that if such an appropriation is made subject to 
authorization that such language will be preserved.
  Second, I am also concerned that in certain accounts the funding 
levels reported out of the conference are higher than the levels 
approved by either the Senate or the House. Reprioritization of funds 
in the conference in this manner does raise many legitimate concerns.
  Third, the report to accompany the conferenced bill does contain 
numerous earmarks not contained in the reports that accompanied either 
the House or Senate bills. I raise this issue not to criticize, but 
instead to emphasize for the record that such language does not have 
the force of law, is not binding, and should only be considered as a 
recommendation to the administration. I would hope the President and 
the Secretary of Transportation would use their own judgment and spend 
these funds in a fair, rational manner based on national priorities.
  In past years the Transportation appropriations bill has been riddled 
with earmarks and pork. I am pleased that this year's bill contains 
substantially fewer earmarks. To be certain, it does contain earmarks 
and some pork that I would like to have seen been dropped. But on the 
whole, the bill deserves our praise and support.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  I commend both the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Chairman Hatfield, and the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Congressman Wolf, for 
bringing us a balanced bill considering current budget constraints.
  The conference report provides $12.7 billion in budget authority and 
$11.9 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the Department of 
Transportation, including Federal-aid highway, mass transit, aviation, 
and maritime activities.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $13.1 billion in budget 
authority [BA] and $37.3 billion in new outlays.
  The subcommittee is $18 million in BA below its 602(b) allocation, 
and it is essentially at its outlay allocation.
  I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the final bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT    
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Budget             
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.....................................         382     25,376
  H.R. 2002, conference report...................      12,100     11,378
  Scorekeeping adjustment........................  ..........  .........
                                                  ----------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary............      12,482     36,754
                                                  ======================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.....................................  ..........         60
  H.R. 2002, conference report...................         582        521
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions.................           2         -0
                                                  ----------------------
      Subtotal mandatory.........................         584        581
                                                  ======================
      Adjusted bill total........................      13,066     37,335
                                                  ======================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary..........................  ..........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary.......................      12,500     36,754
  Violent crime reduction trust fund.............  ..........  .........
  Mandatory......................................         584        581
                                                  ----------------------
    Total allocation.............................      13,084     37,335
                                                  ======================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary........................  ..........  .........
    Nondefense discretionary.....................         -18         -0
    Violent crime reduction trust fund...........  ..........  .........
    Mandatory....................................  ..........  .........
                                                  ----------------------
      Total allocation...........................         -18         -0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

          TASMAN LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA.

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he would 
engage in a brief colloquy with myself and my colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, regarding a critical San Francisco Bay 
area transportation project.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would be pleased to address this issue with the 
Senators from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Tasman corridor light rail 
project is an integral piece of the local rail agreement fashioned by 
our regional metropolitan planning organization, the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission [MTC]. All of the bay area jurisdictions are 
a party to this agreement which represents the best in local planning 
and decisionmaking. When 

[[Page S16360]]

the California Supreme Court on September 28, invalidated our so-called 
Measure A, a half-cent sales tax dedicated to many important highway, 
commuter rail and transit construction projects, the planned-for local 
match for the Tasman project appeared to be lost. Due to the 
perseverance of all involved, in the few short weeks since that ruling 
the Tasman corridor plan has been revised to reflect the new fiscal 
realities. It has been proposed that only the west extension to 
Mountain View be built at this time. The 7.5-mile line will cost $125 
million less than the original project, and only 50 percent of its 
funding will be derived from Federal section 3 new start funds. Of the 
$122 million in proposed new starts funding, some $33 million has 
already been appropriated and dedicated to the Tasman project by the 
MTC. The remainder of the funding will come from identified State, 
local and flexible Federal funding sources authorized under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. This 
revised plan has the unanimous support of Santa Clara County's Transit 
Agency Board, and I expect shortly will be approved by the MTC and 
later included in the California Transportation Commission's revised 
State Transportation Improvement Program.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman whether in view of 
these positive developments, and in deference to the local and regional 
planning process which has served us so well, he would agree to the 
following: that if the revised Tasman project secures all requisite 
Federal, State, and regional approvals in a timely fashion, the $33 
million in unobligated balances referenced in the conference report may 
be provided by the MTC for the commencement of construction on the 
Tasman west extension.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chairman for his understanding and thoughtful 
response. At this time I would yield to my distinguished colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, for additional comments.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I applaud the efforts of many in the bay area who 
moved quickly after the court's ruling to make the necessary 
modifications to the proposed Tasman corridor extension. This project 
is even more cost effective and compelling today and reflects creative 
land use planning and promising joint development opportunities. The 
bay area congressional delegation has rallied around this important 
project. A similar colloquy occurred in the House with Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf. Our efforts here today 
represent an important reaffirmation of the value of local and regional 
planning and decision making, a focus consistent with the goals of 
ISTEA and more likely to ensure timely and cost-effective project 
completion. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Hatfield, in 
making certain that the plan for the Tasman west extension is 
financially sound and continues to enjoy the broad-based support it has 
in the past.


                       FERRY BOATS AND FISHERIES

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to 
address a section of the Transportation appropriations bill that speaks 
to Federal aid to highways. Specifically, I wish to point out that the 
Senate included $17 million for ferry boats and facilities.
  My State of Alaska has critical needs for a functioning 
transportation infrastructure. In the southeastern part of the State 
this is accomplished with ferrys and aviation. As many Members know, 
this part of Alaska has numerous isolated islands, and road systems 
that are only local in nature. The extremely mountainous coastline 
prohibits the Alaskan southeastern towns, including the State Capitol 
of Juneau, from connecting to any other road system in North America. 
When the weather is bad, which is quite often in this part of the 
world, aviation is of limited assistance.
  Scheduled ferry service is of immeasurable assistance to the remote 
southeast towns. If available, a share of the $17 million would be 
directed to enhancing the ferry system between the towns of Craig, 
Whale Pass, Blind Slough, and Wrangell.
  I ask the Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Hatfield, if it 
is his understanding that Alaska is a State that can avail itself of a 
share of these ferry boats and facilities funds?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from Alaska is correct. Alaska may apply 
for a share of the $17 million dedicated to ferry boats and 
facilities.


                         essential air service

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the conference report we are 
considering today makes dramatic cuts in the essential air service 
program. In fact, the program will see an almost 30 percent cut in 
funding this year--from over $30 million last year to $22.6 million 
this year. The statutory language of the conference report maintains 
the eligibility of EAS communities nationwide--the same number of 
communities that are eligible today will remain eligible next year.
  Therefore, we have a situation where the same number of communities 
are eligible for EAS funding, yet far fewer dollars are available for 
the program.
  Mr. President, while I remain very concerned with the funding 
reduction for the EAS program, I am more concerned with language 
included in the statement of manager's report.
  Language included in the statement of manager's report makes it clear 
that all communities eligible for EAS funding in fiscal year 1995 
remain eligible in fiscal year 1996. However, the language continues on 
to say that the Department ``may be required to make prorata reductions 
in the subsidy or daily/weekly service levels'' in order to meet the 
reduced funding level. In other words, the only discretion the 
Department has in meeting these funding reductions is an across-the-
board reduction in the level of air service of EAS communities.
  This language ties the hands of the Department of Transportation. The 
statement of managers language is being interpreted to be the only 
solution available in meeting the reduction in funding.
  Mr. President, the purpose of the essential air service program is to 
provide air service to rural, isolated communities. In my home State of 
Montana, our seven EAS communities are isolated. They are over 600 
miles from a medium or large hub airport. A reduction in air service to 
these communities would be a real economic blow and would further 
isolate these folks.
  I would ask my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
if the intent of the conferees was to give the Secretary the discretion 
to determine the type of program that should exist with $22.6 million 
in funding--and the intent was not to place one option above another? 
There may be other ways to reach this funding level without an across-
the-board reduction in the level of service and the Secretary should 
have the ability to make decisions that would maintain the integrity of 
the EAS program in the future.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, that the 
intent of the conferees was to continue to maintain the current 
eligibility criteria for the essential air service program. However, 
the decision on how the program should be structured with a reduced 
funding level should be left to the discretion of the Secretary.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend. The Senator from Oregon 
understands the important rule that reliable air service plays in 
States like Montana and I appreciate his efforts to preserve this 
program.
  At a time when life in rural America is becoming increasingly 
difficult, reliable air service is a vital link in our transportation 
network. The essential air service program is just that--it is 
essential and its integrity should be maintained.
  I thank my friend again.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the conference 
report for the Department of Transportation appropriations bill 
includes an appropriation of $20 million for capital improvements 
associated with safety-related emergency repairs to Pennsylvania 
Station in New York City and its associated service building.
  Pennsylvania Station is the busiest intermodal station in the Nation, 
with almost 40 percent of Amtrak's passengers nationwide passing 
through every day. Unfortunately, it is also the most decrepit of the 
Northeast corridor stations, others of which, such as Washington, DC's 
own Union Station, have been renovated with Federal grants. Today, 
Pennsylvania Station 

[[Page S16361]]

handles almost 500,000 riders a day in a subterranean complex that 
demands improvement. According to the New York City Fire Commissioner, 
there have been nine major fires at the station since 1987. Luckily, 
these fires have occurred at off-hours; as it stands, the station could 
not cope with an emergency when it is crowded with the 42,000 souls who 
pass through every workday between 8 and 9 a.m. In addition, structural 
steel in the station has shown its age and needs immediate repair. And 
these are just the most pressing needs.
  There is a redevelopment plan to change things for the better, a $315 
million project to renovate the existing Pennsylvania Station and 
extend it partially into the neighboring historic James A. Farley Post 
Office, almost doubling the emergency access to the station's platforms 
which lie far below street level beneath both buildings. Moreover, 
there is a financing plan in place that could do this with $100 million 
from the Federal Government--with this bill, $51.5 million has already 
been appropriated--$100 million from the State and city, and $115 
million from a combination of historic tax credits, bonds supported by 
revenue from the project's retail component, and building shell 
improvements by the Postal Service, owner of the James A. Farley 
Building. On August 31, 1995, Governor Pataki of New York chartered the 
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp. to oversee the project, 
following the signing of a memorandum of agreement by himself, Mayor 
Giuliani of New York City, Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, and 
Amtrak President Thomas M. Downs.
  Thanks to our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, $20 
million can now be used immediately for pressing safety repairs at the 
existing station and its associated service building, in the first step 
of the overall redevelopment effort. These Federal funds go toward 
construction, and they will count toward the Federal share of the $315 
million project to transform the station into a complex capable of 
safely handling the crowds that have made Pennsylvania Station the 
Nation's busiest intermodal facility.
  For myself and the 75 million other people a year who use the 
station, I would like to thank all those who have labored hard to make 
the station safer, in particular our colleagues Senator Hatfield, 
Senator Byrd, and Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I want to register my opposition to the 
provisions of the Transportation appropriations conference report that 
exempt the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] from Government-wide 
procurement and personnel rules. These provisions were included by the 
Appropriations Committee in the Senate passed bill at the 
recommendation of the FAA and will take effect on April 1, 1996, unless 
the Congress enacts preemptive FAA reform legislation before then.
  The FAA asserts that these exemptions are necessary because personnel 
and procurement laws have stood in the way of modernizing the FAA's Air 
Traffic Control System. The FAA's failure to modernize the system, 
however, is not rooted in the Federal procurement and personnel 
systems. Instead, it is a symptom of a widespread and serious 
management deficiency which permeates the FAA. Numerous GAO reports and 
DOT Inspector General reports over the last 5 years have outlined the 
problems the FAA has had in modernizing its air traffic control system. 
These reports have consistently cited poor management, not the 
procurement or personnel systems, as the primary cause of FAA's 
failures.
  I understand and share the frustration with the lack of progress at 
the FAA. The air traffic control system designed to keep our skies safe 
is crumbling, and each failure of the system leads to a chorus of calls 
for action. Regrettably, however, out of frustration at the FAA's 
inability to succeed in modernizing our air traffic control system, 
Congress is about to grant a special dispensation to an agency that has 
not earned it and is ill-prepared to accept the responsibilities that 
such an exemption will require. If the FAA was better at managing than 
denying there is a problem, defending its poor performance, and 
deflecting criticism away from the agency, we would have replaced our 
air traffic control system years ago and would not have 1950's and 
1960's technology guiding our Nation's air traffic.
  I have been working over the past 3 years to enable Federal agencies 
such as the FAA to more effectively incorporate advanced computer 
technology into its operations. Last year, I issued a report that 
documented how the Federal procurement process contributes to the 
Government buying outdated technology but also how poor FAA management 
led to the disaster of the present air traffic control system. 
Specifically, FAA has failed in its modernization efforts, wasted 
billions of taxpayer dollars and still has not been able to update its 
computer systems since the mid-1960's due to consistently poor 
management. Meanwhile, the Nation's air traffic control system is 
wearing out. To keep the system running, the FAA must search Radio 
Shack for spare parts and buy vacuum tubes from Third World 
manufacturers because no one in the United States makes them anymore.
  While it takes the Federal Government an average of 4 years compared 
to 1 year in the private sector to buy new technology, 30-year-old FAA 
computers are failing with increasing frequency in Chicago, Dallas, New 
York and elsewhere across the country. While the Government's 
antiquated procurement rules definitely slow down the process and may 
add years to computer buys, the rules do not explain why the FAA has 
not modernized its systems in decades or explain how scores of other 
agencies have been able to work within the rules to replace antiquated 
vacuum tube computers and radars.
  I am working to accomplish reforms to the Federal procurement system. 
This year I introduced The Information Technology Management Reform Act 
of 1995 which was approved as an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 
Defense authorization bill. The amendment includes significant changes 
to existing procurement regulations and procedures which would help 
agencies such as the FAA buy technology by providing relief from 
cumbersome requirements while ensuring a reasonable and responsible 
approach.
  Among other provisions, the amendment repeals the Brooks Act, 
authorizes commercial-like buying procedures, and emphasizes the 
results of the procurement process rather than the process itself while 
holding agencies like the FAA accountable for their results. The Senate 
is now conferencing this amendment with the House proposed procurement 
reform bill put forward by Representatives Clinger and Spence. The 
House has proposed serious reform in the area of streamlining the 
procurement process, conducting efficient competitions and making it 
easier to buy commercial products. I believe we will be successful in 
getting these proposals enacted into law and these reforms will give 
FAA the flexibility to effectively buy the technology it needs.
  These reforms, however, will not guarantee success. We can legislate 
the framework for effective management to take place, but we cannot 
legislate good management. While we need to reform the way the 
Government buys computers, the FAA's failure to modernize the air 
traffic control system is not derived from legislated procurement and 
personnel requirements. It is the lack of adequate planning and a 
constantly changing road map of where the FAA is going that has impeded 
completion of the modernization effort. This is caused by managers not 
knowing what they want and continually changing program requirements 
which drives up the cost to the taxpayer.
  The problem is that no one, including Congress, has ever held FAA's 
managers accountable for their failures. Management problems at FAA 
will not be solved by the exemptions contained in the appropriations 
bill. To the contrary, I believe the exemptions will result in more 
cost and less results. The exemptions do nothing to deal with the 
fundamental problem of poor management at the FAA.
  The proposed exemptions, in addition to lacking merit, also set a 
dangerous precedent. Having seen the FAA's success in avoiding 
accountability and obtaining special treatment, other agencies may seek 
similar legislative exemptions. If Congress acquiesces to these 
piecemeal approaches, the Federal Government will be plagued by 
conflicting and contradictory procurement laws and personnel systems 

[[Page S16362]]

 which will make it harder--not easier--to do business with the 
Government. Industry will have to learn literally hundreds of 
procurement systems. The rational approach is to have one procurement 
system in the Government that addresses the problems which may be 
perceived to be unique to FAA, but are common in every agency.
  This conference report undermines ongoing efforts to enact 
Government-wide procurement reform, as well as rewards inept management 
at the FAA with exemptions from oversight rules when they are most 
needed. If the conference report is adopted, as I expect it will be, I 
urge the administration and FAA to use the new discretion authorized by 
the bill wisely and I urge my colleagues to hold FAA accountable for 
its progress in modernizing the Nation's air traffic control system. By 
absolving the FAA of its responsibility for past failures, Congress 
must now provide greater oversight of what FAA does with its new 
powers.
  The new authority under this bill will not go into effect if Congress 
enacts FAA reform legislation by April 1 of next year. When the 
Commerce Committee marks up its own bill to meet this deadline, I urge 
the committee members to look at what the Congress and the 
administration are doing to streamline the procurement process. They 
will then see that we are fixing the procurement system on a Gov- 
ernment-wide basis, and they can then focus on the real issue of 
managerial reform at FAA. For it is only through more effective 
management that the FAA will be able to efficiently and effectively 
modernize the air traffic control system and confront the other 
challenges to aviation safety in the 21st century.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to draw attention to something 
that is mysteriously missing from the conference report on the 
Transportation appropriations bill. The provision I am concerned about 
does not involve spending more or less money. Rather, I am concerned 
about a provision that called for an important study to be done by the 
Department of Transportation on the question of air fares and whether 
or not rural areas are paying more and getting less service.
  When the Senate considered this bill, an amendment I offered was 
adopted without any objections. That amendment, which was cosponsored 
by Senators Dole, Snowe, and Conrad would have required the Department 
of Transportation to conduct a study on air fares. There was no 
opposition expressed in the Senate and the Department itself supported 
the study.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from 
Transportation Secretary Fredrico Pena supporting this provision be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Secretary of Transportation,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing this letter in order to 
     endorse the study of air fares and service at small 
     communities that you recently proposed. Since many changes 
     have taken place within the airline industry since 
     deregulation and some of these have affected small 
     communities, I fully agree that a study of fares and service 
     at small communities would be beneficial. I am aware that the 
     General Accounting Office is currently conducting a similar 
     study of small community issues. However, I believe the 
     studies are somewhat different in their focus and I, 
     therefore, endorse your study.
       Your recommended approach to the study would compare and 
     evaluate actual air fares and fares adjusted for distance for 
     service between nonhub airports and large hub airports with 
     fares for service between large hub airports. The study also 
     would analyze service at nonhub airports with respect to the 
     operations of regional and major airlines, the types of 
     equipment used, and the levels of competition among 
     commercial carriers.
       In order to get a statistically valid comparison, it may be 
     necessary to conduct a survey of regional carriers to get a 
     more valid data set, which may require additional time to 
     conduct a thorough study. We will also endeavor to study the 
     overall fares paid at small communities compared to fares 
     paid at hub airports.
       I look forward to working with you and your staff on this 
     project. If we may be of further assistance, please contact 
     me or Steven Palmer, Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
     Affairs, at (202) 366-4573.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Federico Pena.

  Mr. DORGAN. It seems to me that we need to make some changes in 
aviation policy in this country and stop ignoring the fact that rural 
regions are suffering a serious decline in air service. The airline 
industry has undergone many changes since deregulation in the early 
1980's. The invisible hand of competition replaced the assuring hand of 
government in the aviation market-place. As a result, some areas of the 
country have seen lower prices and more choices in service. In other 
parts of the country, namely in rural areas, we have seen dramatic 
losses in air service and higher prices.
  I realize that the General Accounting Office has studied the impact 
that deregulation has had on air fares in previous years. However, my 
sense is that air service is changing rapidly and it seems to me that 
more examination of air fares, especially for small rural communities, 
is needed.
  A November 1990 report on ``Deregulation and Trends in Airfares at 
Small and Medium-Sized Communities,'' found that overall, average fares 
per passenger mile were more than 9 percent lower in 1988 than in 1979 
at small and medium-sized airports and about 5 percent lower at 
airports serving large communities.
  It seems to me that the Department of Transportation should be paying 
some more attention to the problems of rural America when it comes to 
air service. Most experts in town and at the Department of 
Transportation have pledged allegiance to the god of deregulation. They 
espouse the great virtues of deregulation and the tremendous benefits 
that the free market has brought in the form of more choices and lower 
air fares. They are right--but only half right. The fact is that the 
benefits of deregulation are only the rosy part of the picture. The 
story not being told enough is the negative effects deregulation has 
had on smaller, rural communities.
  I offered this amendment because it seems that it is very important 
that the Department of Transportation begin focusing on the impact that 
deregulation has had on air service in rural areas. I am fully aware 
that the General Accounting Office [GAO] is currently conducting a 
similar study. I support that but I also believe that we cannot be 
satisfied with just having the GAO examining this issue.
  The amendment I offered and the Senate adopted would have laid out 
specific areas for the Department to study, including comparison of air 
fares in hub markets where there is a concentration of service with 
fares at competitive hub markets. In addition, this study would have 
conducted, for the first time I believe, an analysis on the level of 
service that rural areas are receiving and document which rural markets 
have had jet service replaced with turbo prop service.
  Now this provision was mysteriously dropped, despite the fact that 
the Department supported it and that it was cosponsored by a bipartisan 
group of Senators--including the majority leader. It makes no sense 
that this provision was dropped.
  This is one of the primary reasons why I am voting against this bill. 
I strongly believe that this amendment should have been included in the 
conference report and no reasonable explanation has been provided as to 
why it was dropped.
  I also oppose this conference report because of the significant cuts 
to critical rural programs.


                 essential air service [eas] reductions

  The report cuts EAS by about $11 million from last year's level of 
$33 million. I think that these cuts are going to hurt and that a 
permanent funding mechanism needs to be found for the EAS program. 
However, before a permanent solution can be developed, it makes no 
sense to cut this program to this degree. The EAS program is making the 
difference between air service and no air service in many rural 
communities. Cuts of this magnitude will certainly be felt.
  I do not believe that cutting the EAS program is justifiable in light 
of the essential role this program plays in providing air service to 
rural America. Deregulation has benefited some highly traveled areas of 
the country and rural areas have suffered. The EAS program was designed 
to protect rural areas and this bill strikes a critical blow at this 
important program.

[[Page S16363]]



             local rail freight assistance program restored

  The Senate defeated an amendment offered by Senator Pressler to 
restore funding for the Local Rail Freight Assistance program [LRFA]. 
This program provides support to restore rail links that are likely to 
be abandoned. It has been a very important program in my home state of 
North Dakota.
  The LRFA program received $17 million last year, of which $6 million 
was rescinded. Neither the House nor the Senate bill provided funding 
for LRFA and the conference report does not provide any funding. 
Although I am pleased that the conference report included an amendment 
that would authorize the State of North Dakota to spend $2.3 million to 
restore a rail line in Wahpeton, ND, I do not support the elimination 
of this important program.


                interstate commerce commission phase-out

  The conference report provides for $13.4 million for one quarter for 
the ICC for salaries and expenses and assumes that the ICC will be 
eliminated and that legislation providing for the continuation of 
statutory obligations under the jurisdiction of the ICC will be enacted 
this year. The question as to what happens if the Congress fails to 
pass such legislation has not been answered. The statutory obligations 
will remain but the agency that has the sole jurisdiction to enforce 
them will have no funding to enforce them.
  It makes no sense to me that funding for the ICC should be eliminated 
before the Congress has provided for an efficient way to address the 
statutory obligations that will continue to exist if the Commission is 
eliminated.


                   airport improvement program grants

  The Report provides $1.45 billion in the grants-in-aid for airports 
program [AIP] instead of the $1.6 billion provided under the House bill 
and the $1.25 billion under the Senate bill. I am very concerned that 
this level of funding will not be adequate to maintain safe airports 
and our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in danger of 
crumbling at these funding levels.


                               conclusion

  Programs like EAS and LRFA are vitally important to rural areas--in 
fact, they are exclusively rural transportation programs. Both these 
programs have been seriously cut and in the case of LRFA, eliminated.
  At the same time, there is substantial support for transportation 
programs designed to help urban areas, such as high speed rail and mass 
transit. Examples include:
  $115 million for the northeast corridor improvement program (instead 
of the $100 million provided by the Senate and $130 million provided by 
the House).
  $19.2 million for high speed rail studies, corridor planning, 
development, and demonstration (instead of the $10 million provided by 
the House and $20 million provided by the Senate). These funds will be 
allocated to Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and New York.
  The report provides for $42 million for the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA does have some rural programs but urban areas 
primarily benefit from mass transit). In addition, the report provides 
$85 million for transit planning and research.
  Mr. President, this legislation reflects the wrong priorities for 
this country's transportation needs and that is why I am voting against 
this legislation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am voting ``aye'' today on the 
conference report on transportation appropriations for fiscal year 
1996. But I must say that it is not without disappointment that we have 
not fulfilled our responsibility to maintain and enhance the 
transportation infrastructure in the United States.
  It is a status quo budget for the most part of my State of 
California, and that means we are continuing to fall behind our needs 
to repair our highways, transit systems and airports. That failure also 
means that we cannot fulfill our potential economic productivity. That 
is a loss for our Nation as well as my State.
  Nevertheless, in this extremely tight budget year the conference 
agreement does provide some needed assistance for California.
  I am pleased to see that the conferees were able to increase funding 
for the Federal Aviation Administration, particularly in the areas of 
facilities and equipment. The operations budget in the conference 
agreement is higher than the amount funded in either the Senate or 
House bills. California is the site of several major air traffic 
control installations and we must continue to upgrade this critical 
equipment. I appreciate the conferees support for the FAA's operating 
budget for air traffic control operations and maintenance activities 
which enhance aviation safety and security.
  Highway funding has increased overall, but unfortunately it is still 
stagnant for California, the State that has contributed the most to the 
Highway Trust Fund for nearly 40 years.
  The agreement includes significant funding for new buses and 
intermodal transportation centers in California.
  These include $500,000 for the Sunline Transit System, which has a 
remarkable program promoting a total fleet of natural gas buses; $1.5 
million for needed bus replacement and parts for Long Beach Transit; $8 
million to complete the Gateway intermodal center in Los Angeles; $5 
million for the San Ysidro Intermodal Center in San Diego to help 
relieve worsening congestion at our international border; $6.7 million 
for new buses throughout the bay area, plus $2.3 million for bay area 
paratransit buses and other improvements to help the disabled; $9.75 
million for Foothills Transit in the San Gabriel Valley; $5.3 million 
for clean fuel buses, paratransit buses, and other improvements for the 
growing San Joaquin Rapid Transit District; $1.5 million to replace a 
bus facility destroyed by the Loma Prieta earthquake and provide 
consolidated services in Santa Cruz; $1.2 million for park and ride 
facilities on congested U.S. 101 in Sonoma County; $600,000 for a bus 
facility in Ventura County; and $1.5 million to purchase buses for Yolo 
County.

  The conference agreement also provides $5 million for the advanced 
technology transit bus, under development by Northrop and the Los 
Angeles MTA. Although the amount is less than the President's request, 
I appreciate the continuing support for this project by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee.
  I am very concerned over a loss of approximately $100 million in 
transit system funding. A great part of this loss is attributable to 
the cuts in operating assistance in both Houses and to a dramatic cut 
in funding for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 
Red Line extension.
  I share the Appropriations Committee's concern over the management of 
this project. However, I believe the MTA has grasped the gravity of 
these problems and has taken demonstrable steps to correct them. I am 
pleased the Senate committee members agreed to our requests to increase 
the funding from $45 million for the project in the Senate bill to $85 
million in the final conference report.
  I am, however, disappointed at the cut in funding for the bay area 
rail extension program. The final agreement of $10 million for the bay 
area rapid transit district is well below the Senate level of $22.6 
million. This cut was not justified considering the major local match 
provided for rail extension in the region and the willingness of the 
district to reduce its airport extension project by $200 million this 
summer.
  Finally, I regret that the conference committee was unable to provide 
assistance for the Alameda Transportation Corridor project to 
consolidate rail and highway access to the ports of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach, eliminating more than 200 grade crossings. We have asked 
for appropriations seed money to enable the project to take advantage 
of the Federal infrastructure bank already authorized under section 
1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. The Senate committee adopted a State infrastructure bank 
alternative instead and then dropped the idea in conference with the 
House.
  California has 15,000 miles of State highways, 675 miles of rail 
transit, and 10,000 buses. California's State Transportation 
Improvement Program faces a $5 billion shortfall, and an annual highway 
and road maintenance deficit of $800 millilon. We are in danger of 
losing what we have. There is a lot of talk about how huge budget 
deficits leave a horrible inheritance for our children, and I agree. 
However, a decayed and crumbling infrastructure is no less horrible for 
our children to inherit.

[[Page S16364]]

  The bill is still due. The infrastructure deficit is increasing. But 
today we only provide a partial payment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Dole, the majority leader, 
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the 
transportation conference report occur at 2:15 p.m. today and that 
paragraph 4 of rule 12 be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________