[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6964-H6973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT,
1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 460 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R.
23675.
{time} 0109
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3675) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognize the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the interests of brevity, Mr. Chairman, and because everyone,
including the staff, ought to be able to go home, I will include my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, today I am proud to present to the House H.R. 3675, the
transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I believe this
is a very good bill which will improve aviation and highway safety,
provide essential funding for highways and other infrastructure
improvements across the country, and maintain the Federal Government's
commitment to help localities and Amtrak with assistance in their
operating budgets. This is a balanced bill, created in a bipartisan
manner under difficult budget constraints.
Before I go any further, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the huge
contributions of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] in putting
together this bill, and past bills, in a truly bipartisan fashion.
This will be the gentleman's last transportation appropriations bill,
and I want to say how much I appreciate his diligence and hard work,
and his true concern for transportation safety and infrastructure
around this country. He will be sorely missed, and we all wish him
well.
As all of us know, Mr. Chairman, the coming fiscal year will be very
difficult, as we continue to tighten our belt on the way to a balanced
budget. This is even more painful with each passing year, because the
easiest budget reductions have already been made. Yet this body has
shown its strong and unwavering commitment to eliminating the deficit
by the year 2002, so some continued sacrifices will be needed.
Before I get into specifics of the bill, let me put the larger budget
numbers in perspective. This year, our 602(b) allocation in new outlays
is $11.4 billion, which is the same level as last year. This might not
seem too difficult until you realize that just to fund things like the
employee pay raise, normal inflation in employee medical insurance and
other benefits, and general inflation in goods and services, the
Department of Transportation would need $250 million more than it
received in fiscal year 1996.
And if you use the President's budget as the baseline instead of the
current level of funding, even greater reductions are required, because
the budget proposed a large increase in new outlays. Combined with the
money we need to pay off debts from past years, our budget allocation
puts us $359 million in outlays below the administration's request. So
very difficult choices had to be made below the level of their request.
This bill sets priorities with the limited resources we have
available. What are those priorities?
Safety: Maintaining and improving safety is the number one priority
in this bill, above everything else. The recent aviation accidents have
convinced many of us that more needs to be done, and there are other
troubling signs as well. Fraudulent and unapproved aircraft parts now
get inside our commercial airliners all too often. And our aging air
traffic control equipment raises concerns.
Last year, air traffic centers all over the country experienced
breakdowns in important radar and communication systems. And air
traffic controllers are getting stretched thin as air traffic increases
without consistent growth in staffing.
To deal with these problems, the bill before the House today raises
funding for air traffic control operations by about 6 percent,
providing funds for 250 additional air traffic controllers and 373 new
staff in aviation safety inspection and oversight. The bill also adds
$139 million, not in the President's request, for new air traffic
control equipment and systems to improve safety and airway capacity.
Because of the extremely serious questions surfacing now over
aviation safety and the FAA's oversight, the bill appropriates $2.4
million for a blue-ribbon commission to perform a comprehensive review
of aviation safety, financing, and acquisition. Over the past few
weeks, we've seen FAA inspectors and the Transportation Inspector
General testify before the House and Senate about safety problems. We
read about internal FAA memos raising safety alarms which go ignored by
management.
And we know how long it takes the FAA to procure and install new
safety equipment. These problems must be addressed in a comprehensive,
non-political and professional way.
This high level commission will be bipartisan, and will have adequate
funding to analyze in-depth the aviation safety situation in the United
States, the FAA's financing problems, and its organization. I intend to
offer an amendment to the FAA authorization bill which provides the
authorization for this commission when that bill is before the House
later this summer. The chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee agrees with me on this approach. He supports
this language, and I am pleased that the appropriations bill provides
funds for this important activity.
And we must do more in other safety areas as well, or at least hold
the line in the face of
[[Page H6965]]
oncoming budget cuts. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [NHTSA], for example, performs critical work in research
and public education to make our highways safer.
Earlier advances in reducing highway fatalities in this country have
slowed in recent years, and in some states, fatalities are going back
up with repeal of the national speed limit a few months ago. So the
Committee bill places priority on protecting NHTSA's budget, and the
related motor carrier safety grants program in the Federal Highway
Administration.
Similarly, the second highest number of transportation fatalities in
this country occur on our Nation's waterways, and we have received
strong appeals from the States to raise funding for boating safety. So
the bill raises funds significantly for this program--a 50 percent
increase--and requires the Coast Guard to take a more active posture in
helping to reduce boating deaths around the country.
Current Operations: The bill also tries to maintain funds for the
various operating budgets, and for operating grants, at close to last
year's levels. We do not have the resources to start major new
initiatives. But we have tried to maintain the current level of
operations. Coast Guard operations is funded at approximately last
year's level.
Transit operating assistance is at the 1996 level of $400 million,
which was difficult since the budget resolution passed by this House
assumes that we phase out these grants. And Amtrak operating is at the
budget request level. To enhance safety, the bill provides a 6 percent
increase in FAA operations, but to help finance the increase, we
include $30 million in FAA user fees. These funding levels will
maintain current levels of operations except at the FAA, which will be
increased.
Investing in Infrastructure: The bill places a high priority on
investing in the Nation's infrastructure. With great difficulty, we
have found a way to finance the federal-aid highways program at the
current level, which will provide funds for road construction in every
State. Once again this year, we have included no highway demo projects
in the bill, allowing us to put more resources into the hands of the
States to decide themselves which projects have the highest need.
Likewise, we are not earmarking funds for airport construction grants.
Regarding the Central Artery highway project in Boston, we considered
placing a cap on the total cost of that project this year, due to the
spiraling costs. However, we have recently received information and
assurances from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department of
Transportation that the program is now under control. So although we
will continue to monitor this project, I am pleased with the progress
made at this time, and the bill includes no provisions restricting
funds for this project.
Mr. Chairman, we have tried hard to minimize reductions in capital
programs, but that has not been possible in every program. The proposal
includes $4 billion for transit grants, the same as the current level.
It includes $1.8 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, essentially
the same as the budget request. It includes approximately the same
level of funding as last year for Coast Guard acquisition, although
additional resources will be available to augment their appropriation
through sales of Coast Guard airplanes and shore stations which are no
longer needed.
Two capital programs have been hit harder than others in this bill,
and they are very good programs. These are airport grants and Amtrak.
We provide $1.3 billion for airport grants, 4 percent below the
administration's request and $150 million below the 1996 level.
Likewise, Amtrak capital programs are funded at $200 million, a large
reduction from $345 million provided for 1996. In addition to this
appropriated level, Amtrak has just under half a billion dollars in the
bank that it can use during the next year to fund such high priority
items as electrification and procurement of high speed trainsets. This
level of funding does not prejudice Amtrak from receiving consideration
for funding in future appropriations bills.
I know these reductions will cause some Members concern, and I agree
that these are good and meritorious programs. If there is any way to
raise the figures for Amtrak and airport grants as we go through the
process without harming safety programs or other critical needs, I am
open to those suggestions. We have to make the difficult cuts as well
as the easy ones, and I know these are difficult.
Finally, the bill is very clean of extraneous legislative provisions,
and we have tried to work with the legislative committees to ensure
their support for the bill. To my knowledge, the rule just adopted
addresses the remaining concerns of the legislative committees. There
are no major controversial policy changes in the bill. Therefore, I
believe the bill can move forward without delay, and without undue
controversy.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an excellent and balanced bill that
puts an emphasis on our highest responsibility--protecting and
enhancing transportation safety. From a financial standpoint, it is the
best we could do given the budgetary circumstances we are under. It was
developed in a truly bipartisan fashion, and received little
controversy or debate at either the subcommittee or full committee
levels. I believe it deserves the support of this entire body, and I
ask for its approval.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material:
[[Page H6966]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN96.000
[[Page H6967]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN96.001
[[Page H6968]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN96.002
[[Page H6969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN96.003
[[Page H6970]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997
Transportation appropriations bill and ask unanimous consent to revise
and extend my remarks.
At the outset, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]
for working with me and other Members on several issues of particular
interest to me and to other Members on this side of the aisle. He has
been cooperative and fair. I also want to thank the staff--John Blazey,
Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir, and Lori Beth Feld, for their
assistance and hard work on this bill. Also Kristen Hoeschler, Cheryl
Smith, and Christy Cockburn of the minority staff.
I also want to note that the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Coleman] would ordinarily be managing this bill on our side of the
aisle today. He could not be here due to his mother's poor health in
Texas. But, we look forward to his return and his stewardship of this
bill for the minority when we move to conference with the Senate.
The fiscal year 1997 Transportation bill is within the 602(B)
allocation for the subcommittee. It is also well below the amounts
allocated to the Transportation bill in last year's conference report--
as a result, the funding choices were quite difficult, and several of
the new initiatives advanced by the administration were not included in
the bill. Nevertheless, in large measure, the bill provides adequate
funding for basic transportation safety and infrastructure priorities.
The bill provides $4.9 billion for FAA operations, including $30
million in new FAA user fees, and $2.6 billion for Coast Guard
operations. These amounts will fund essential safety operations at
these agencies, although not all of the administration's requests were
funded.
The bill provides $17.55 billion for the Federal-Aid Highways
Program, which will maintain the current level of funding for highway
maintenance, repair, renovation, and construction. These funds will
help ensure that we continue a minimum level of investment to maintain
and improve the condition of our Nation's roads, highways and bridges.
One innovative initiative of the administration to expand highway
capacity and provide congestion relief through cost effective
technology is the Intelligent Transportation Systems [ITS] Program. The
ITS Program has matured from a high risk R&D initiative to the point
where the program is ready to test the feasibility of integrating
advanced technologies for traffic control and management systems in
several cities across the country. I know first hand the potential of
these ITS technologies for improving air quality, reducing congestion
and conserving energy through the Guidestar Initiative that has been
underway in Minnesota for several years.
This bill provides $228 million in funding for ITS Initiatives. I
would have liked a higher funding level, but I believe we are headed in
the right direction. These technology investments certainly have the
potential for significant payoffs in future years and deserve continued
support.
The bill provides $400 million in direct loans over 3 years for
another important administration initiative--the Alameda rail corridor
in California. This economic Development/Transportation Improvement
Project has significant regional and national benefits.
In the area of transit, the bill provides $2.05 billion for transit
formula grants, including $400 million for transit operating
subsidies--the same amounts as last year. Mr. Chairman, transit
operating subsidies were slashed last year by $310 million or 44
percent. As a result, many bus and rail operators have had to cut
service and raise fares, and otherwise diminish services to the working
poor, the elderly and others who depend on mass transit. I am pleased
that this bill holds the line on additional mass transit reductions.
The bill also includes $1.7 billion for discretionary bus, rail
modernization, and transit new start grants--the same amount as
provided in 1996. These funds will help localities replace old, energy
inefficient buses and modernize transit systems throughout the country.
The bill provides $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 funding for the
Airport Improvements Grant Program--a $150 million cut or 10 percent
reduction below this year's level. This funding level was the best we
could do given the 602(b) allocation given the subcommittee. I believe
that we will revisit this issue in conference with the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly mention some concerns about several
other provisions in the bill:
The bill cuts essential air service by nearly 50 percent which will
severely disadvantage the rural communities that depend on these
subsidies.
The bill hits AMTRAK very hard. In total, considering both capital
and operating funds, AMTRAK takes one of the largest reductions in the
bill--a cut of 28 percent. Funding for the northeast corridor--AMTRAK's
most profitable service--is completely eliminated. Clearly, AMTRAK
cannot sustain the severe reductions in this bill, and I expect that
this issue will be revisited in conference.
Mr. Chairman, I also do not agree with the committee's recommendation
to deny $500,000 in funding for the Domestic Auto Content Labeling law.
The American Automobile Labeling Act specifically requires the
Department of Transportation to ensure that automobile manufacturers
label new vehicles to display their domestic content. The U.S. Trade
Representative is relying on the DOT to conduct periodic audits to
monitor the compliance of Japan and other foreign governments with the
1995 Trade Agreement on autos and auto parts.
Under this agreement, Japanese automakers committed that they would
increase their purchases of American automotive parts. However, without
the baseline audits for which this bill denies funding, there will not
be a mechanism for assessing whether these commitments are, in fact,
met. The domestic content law will help promote jobs for U.S. workers,
and provide consumers with information that will help them to buy
American. The majority's decision to delete this funding was a bad
decision, and should be reversed when we deal with this issue in
conference with the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], the ranking member of the committee.
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also simply want to extend my appreciation
to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the
committee, for the manner in which he has proceeded to produce a bill
which I think will meet a bipartisan test. I would also simply note the
absence of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Coleman], who could not be
here today due to an illness in his family in Texas, that this will be
the last transportation bill that Mr. Coleman would be serving this
House on in the capacity of ranking member. We appreciate the very
effective work that he has done.
I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, last year, the Transportation appropriations bill was
one of the appropriations bills where we were able, for the most part,
to bridge partisan differences and reach agreement on a bill that could
be signed into law. I believe that we should be able to accomplish that
same goal on the bill we consider today providing fiscal year 1997
funding for priority transportation programs.
I want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia ,
[Mr. Wolf] for his efforts to work out reasonable compromises on the
bill and to address transportation spending priorities under a 602(b)
allocation that provides $650 million less in budget authority and $1.3
billion less in outlays than was allocated to the conference version of
the 1996 transportation appropriations bill last year.
I also want to note the fine work of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr.
Coleman,] on this bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Coleman could not be here
today due to illness in his family in Texas. This bill will be the last
transportation bill that Mr. Coleman will shepherd through this body as
the ranking minority member of the transportation appropriations
subcommittee. I know we will all miss the good humor and great ability
with which he carries out his responsibilities.
The bill has several positive elements which I want to note. I am
pleased that the bill provides a stable funding level for the Federal-
Aid Highways program at $17.55 billion--the 1996 funding level. I would
note that the conference agreement on the budget resolution which
provided $4 billion more for nondefense discretionary spending over the
House budget resolution allowed the subcommittee to receive an
additional $325 million in outlays which helped to avoid a cut in
funding for the highway program. I would have strongly supported an
increased in highway funding to get closer to the full ISTEA
authorization had additional funds been allocated to the subcommittee.
The bill also provides funding for transit infrastructure and
operating assistance to the current level of $2.0 billion, including
$400 million for transit operating assistance. These funds are
essential for the mobility of the elderly, the poor and disabled, and
those in rural America, who are dependent on bus and mass
transportation to work, shop and live.
Mr. Chairman, at my initiative, the committee report on the bill
requests the Federal Aviation Administration to review the safety
[[Page H6971]]
and airworthiness of the ATR-47 and ATR-72 aircraft to make certain
that they are safe to fly in the conditions in which they are being
flown. The ART 72 is the airplane involved in the 1994 tragic crash in
Roselawn, Indiana which killed 68 people. The National Transportation
Safety Board will be issuing its report next month on the causes of
this accident. My language will help ensure that the FAA undertakes the
necessary reviews so that we can be confident that the FAA has taken
all steps possible to ensure the safety of those who travel aboard
these airplanes.
Mr. Chairman, these are some very positive aspects of the bill. I do,
however, believe that the bill falls short in two areas about which I
have some concerns.
A small, but significant item in the bill relates to the deletion of
$550,000 requested by the administration for the implementation of the
domestic content labeling law. This law requires new passenger vehicles
sold in the United States to be labeled to show their domestic content.
Without these funds, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
will be unable to conduct the necessary audits to evaluate industry
compliance with the requirements of the law.
The deletion of these funds amounts to a de facto repeal of a law
that is needed to monitor the implementation of the June 28, 1995
United States-Japan Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts. This agreement,
its implementation and its enforcement is a central part of the
administration's trade policy toward Japan and its plans for opening
the Japanese market.
For approximately 10 years, the United States government has been
pressuring the Japanese automobile companies to increase their
purchases from United States auto parts suppliers, particularly for
those vehicles assembled in the United States. The domestic content
labeling law provides the United States Government a recognized and
credible methods for benchmarking the United States parts content of
Japanese cars and light trucks. The $500,000 reduction in the bill in
penny-wise, but pound foolish in terms of our ability to monitor and
enforce this agreement to ensure that the Japanese live up to their
commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I also disagree with the $500,000 cut in funds
requested by the FAA for the contract tower program. The reduction in
the bill assumes additional savings will be realized if contract air
traffic controllers are paid less than locally prevailing wages. The
$500,000 in assumed saving will result in a real cut in the program,
since the Department of Labor has already determined that there
insufficient justification for the waiver assumed in the bill. I do not
agree with the suggestion implicit in the bill that we should not pay
these contract air traffic controllers a decent wage. I will also
support the amendment by Mr. Collins relating to changing the age 60
rule for commercial pilots.
Mr. Chairman, the basic elements of this bill are sound. It contains
several flaws that I believe we can correct as the bill moves through
floor, Senate, and conference action. I urge the adoption of the bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
(Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate and thank the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and
let me pay tribute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], who is
retiring. This is the last bill he will be handling on the floor. He
cannot be here because of a very serious illness in the family.
Let me just also thank the gentleman from Minnesota for mentioning
the staff. I would like to include all of those staff names in my
extension, because all of the ones that he mentioned have done an
outstanding job, and quite frankly, without the very capable, very
competent, bright bipartisan staff, it would have been impossible to do
this. I take my hat off, and want the staff to know that I personally
appreciate the good work they have done.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3675, the
Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. On a whole,
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Had we more money, it could have
been a great bill; however, given our self-imposed national emergency
and the tight budget constraints of the committee, Chairman Wolf and
the members of the subcommittee crafted a fine product.
I would like to thank the chairman for his efforts in crafting the
legislation and for consulting with me in advance of the subcommittee
markup. In addition, the chairman did not include any outrageous
provisions which would invoke the opposition of the minority. These two
events have enabled H.R. 3675 to be one of the least controversial
appropriations bills.
The 1997 Transportation bill considered today is within the revised
602b allocation for the Transportation Subcommittee. I might note that
the bill is $650 million in new budget authority below last year's
conference level for the 1996 bill. Obviously, this year's allocation
is not enough to keep up with the pace of inflation nor to fund cost of
living increases, much less to fund the needed increases in
infrastructure investment without making substantial decreases
elsewhere. The chairman worked hard to guarantee that safety would not
be impacted by the constraints of the budget.
While this is a good bill, there are provisions of concern to the
minority and to the administration. They include Amtrak's capital
account; the operating accounts of the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] and the Coast Guard; funding for domestic auto content labeling;
and wage determination for level one air traffic control towers.
Amtrak
I know many members of the majority join the administration and the
minority in their concerns over the deep cuts in Amtrak's capital
account. By cutting this account, it is my belief that we endanger the
progress Amtrak in making in streamlining its operations. While Amtrak
has made progress in reducing its operating grant needs, it must
continue to invest in its infrastructure to attain the operating
efficiencies necessary to provide the level of service required to
attract passengers and revenue.
FAA Operations
The subcommittee was unable to fully fund the administration's
request for FAA and Coast Guard operations accounts.
Within the FAA operations account, the administration is particularly
concerned about the reduction in staff offices and the National
Airspace System [NAS] hand-off. The amount provided for stafrf offices
in the bill is $1.2 million less than in fiscal year 1996 and, $2
million less than requested. The FAA has indicated that if it does not
have $1.2 million of this amount restored, it will have to lay off 70
workers.
By not fully funding the President's budget request for the National
Airspace system hand-off, the subcommittee is effectively mandating
that new equipment not be installed at several facilities and instead
be warehoused.
Coast Guard Operations
With respect to the Coast Guard, the Commandant has taken enormous
strides to streamline its operations. While the committee provided a
portion of the additional funds requested, it stopped far short of
providing the majority of these funds. In addition, the priorities were
shifted so that the funding does not mirror the Coast Guard's request.
To quote the Secretary of Transportation, ``[t]he subcommittee's
reductions are inconsistent with the concept of a streamlined Coast
Guard and will have a direct adverse impact on the maintenance and
operational activity at front line Coast Guard units.'' The Secretary
continues by noting that the reduced investment in Coast Guard assets
will exacerbate efforts to reduce operating costs in the long run.
Domestic Auto Content Labeling
The minority continues to be concerned about the decision not to
provide funding to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA] for domestic auto content labeling. The American Automobile
Labeling Act specifically requires the Department of Transportation to
promulgate regulations and to implement the law.
The U.S. Trade Representative is relying on NHTSA's work to serve as
the baseline for monitoring compliance of the United States-Japan auto
trade agreement that was negotiated in 1995. Under this agreement,
Japanese automakers committed that they would increase their purchases
of American-built automotive parts. However, without the work of NHTSA,
there will not be a mechanism for assessing the levels of U.S. content
in Japanese motor vehicles. Ensuring compliance with this trade
agreement would promote jobs for U.S. workers.
Not funding this initiative will have ramifications beyond the
enforcement of the American Automobile Labeling Act, and I hope that we
can work together to amicably resolve this issue.
Wage Determination
My final concern has to do with wage determination for level one air
traffic control towers. On May 4, 1994, the FAA signed a memorandum of
understanding with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
which ensure that no level one air traffic controller will lose
[[Page H6972]]
his or her job as a result of the contracting-out program. The MOU
provides that affected level one controllers will have the opportunity
to receive additional training and be reassigned to a higher level
tower or be guaranteed the right of first refusal to work for the
private contractor at the equivalent of the Government wage.
The subcommittee assumes that the Department of Labor will issue
waivers to the FAA so that contractors can keep the costs down by
paying controllers at these smaller towers less than the prevailing
wage. It is not within the purview of this subcommittee to direct the
actions of the Department of labor. It is not at all clear that these
savings can be realized. The minority supports reasonable compensation
for a day's work and disagrees with the policy implications this cut
entails.
I would like to note that there are several positive aspects of this
bill. Although the subcommittee was unable to fund the Airport
Improvement Program at last year's level, we were able to maintain
funding for both the highway trust fund and transit operating
assistance at last year's level. This bill emphasizes safety by
providing an additional 100 airline operations inspectors, 54 new air
worthiness inspectors, as well as increased funding of the Boat Safety
Grants Program and highway safety programs, such as safety belt and
helmet use grants.
I would also like to commend the chairman for not earmarking any
highway demonstration projects. The chairman made a decision to refrain
from earmarking and has been steadfast in adhering to that decision
regardless of pressure he may have received from both sides of the
aisle.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee
staff for their efforts in crafting this legislation, I would
especially like to thank Cheryl Smith and Christy Cockburn for their
hard work.
Overall, this is a decent bill, Mr. Chairman, and I commend it to my
colleagues for their favorable consideration. I look forward to working
with the Chairman to address each of these concerns prior to sending
the final legislation to the President.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
legislation, which appropriates the funds to help build the Nation's
highways and other modes of transportation.
I commend Chairman Wolf for his hard work on this legislation.
Transportation carries not only the people of the world, but also the
ideas of the world. Better roadways, safer bridges, smarter highways,
all contribute to a better world.
I am not an expert in bridge building but I know that we must build
bridges with the next generation. That means providing them with the
material to construct a better life for their children.
A balanced budget is one of those materials we will pass on to the
next generation. And I commend the chairman for making this legislation
fiscally responsible.
Better roadways are another material we will pass on to our children,
and this legislation makes the necessary improvements to our Nation's
transportation systems to keep us competitive into the next century.
In my hometown of Houston, this legislation increases funding for
Intelligent Transportation Systems. These state-of-the-art systems pave
the way for the even smarter, more effective transportation systems of
tomorrow. Already, ITS has proved to be an integral part of Houston's
mobility, and will only contribute in greater ways to the ability to
move goods and people in an efficient manner using existing
infrastructure.
This bill also contains funding for other forward-looking
transportation systems, including the Advanced Technology Transit Bus
and Houston Metro. I am especially proud of Houston Metro for being one
of the most effective and cost-efficient transit systems in the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and keep America on
the cutting edge of transportation technology.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
Appropriations Committee for the Yeoman's job of meeting the numerous
funding requests in this tough fiscal environment. Many of us take for
granted and do not recognize the arduous task the Committee faces each
time they are asked to balance fiscal responsibility with economic
development.
I would also like to thank the chairman and the members of the
committee for having the vision to provide the funding for the Alameda
Corridor, to support the $400 million in direct loans, as requested by
the President through the Federal Highway Administration.
The Alameda Corridor will provide this country with a fast and
efficient gateway to Pacific Rim trade and will bolster our ability to
compete in the burgeoning economic area. Once completed the Alameda
Corridor will generate more than 70,000 local jobs and close to 200,000
new jobs nationwide. The expanded trade, created by the construction of
the corridor, through the ports, will create new jobs related to
manufacturing, production, and the shipping and trucking of goods.
Today's funding environment requires a strong public-private
partnership to finance projects of this nature. With over 75 percent of
the cost of the project funded by State and local sources, the Alameda
Corridor truly exemplifies the kind of public-private partnership that
this Congress has long urged States and localities to pursue for
important infrastructure projects.
I would like to thank the members of the California delegation for
working together in bipartisan manner to effectively move the project
through this body and to bring to fruition plans and blueprints that
were conceived long before many of us were sworn into office. Let
history reflect that the success of the Alameda Corridor is rooted in
the bipartisanship that has helped to bring us to this point. I look
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from both parties and
with President Clinton to see the Alameda Corridor through to its
completion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3675. I
would like to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Coleman for their
assistance in eliminating an environmental and safety hazard posed by
abandoned barges in my district. I appreciate all the help both the
majority and minority staff provided in addressing this issue. I would
also like to thank city of Baytown Mayor Alfaro, Harris County
Commissioner Jim Fonteno, Texas State Representative Fred Bosse, the
San Jacinto River Association, and the Banana Bend Civic Association
for bringing this longstanding problem to my attention.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides funding for removing barges
abandoned in the San Jacinto River and the Houston Ship Channel. Last
February I asked the Coast Guard to develop a plan for the disposal of
the barges under the authority of the Barge Removal Act. This Federal
law, passed in Congress in 1992, grants power to the Coast Guard to
remove any abandoned barge after attempts to identify the owner have
been exhausted. I believe that these environmental and navigational
hazards have to be removed immediately under this provision to prevent
further damage to life and property.
Again Mr. Chairman, I offer my strong support for this legislation
and urge its immediate passage.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
3675, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I
would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Wolf, for shepherding this bill
through the Appropriations Committee with little or no controversy. I
would also like to take this opportunity to say that it has been an
honor and a privilege to serve with Ron Coleman who is leaving this
body at the end of this Congress. Ron epitomizes the best
characteristics of public service and his leadership will be missed by
us all.
While this bill is imperfect, I think that the chairman has done a
good job at balancing the diverse transportation needs of this country.
I am particularly pleased that the committee has recognized the need to
upgrade airline safety by funding additional positions at the FAA.
I am also pleased that the committee has included two projects that
are very important to the transportation needs of my district.
Bus Acquisition--Yolo County
Last year the Yolo County Transit Authority [YCTA] was able to
replace six of its aging and heavily polluting diesel-fueled buses with
fully equipped compressed natural gas buses. Because the six buses
approved by the committee last year constituted a little less than half
of the county's total request, I am pleased that the committee has
supported my request to fund the remaining buses.
Yolo County is part of the Sacramento nonattainment air basin and
would face serious sanctions if aggressive efforts are not taken to
reduce emissions. Compressed natural gas buses have made a significant
impact on the air quality in Yolo County. YCTA already operates four
compressed natural gas buses and has seen its emissions reduced by over
50,000 pounds due to the operation of these buses.
South-Line Extension
Also included in this legislation is $6 million for final design of
an extension of Sacramento's light rail system. The extension will run
southward from the existing rail hub in the downtown business district,
toward two community colleges, two hospitals, several major employment
centers and redeveloping areas, and many of the region's most
disadvantaged neighborhoods. These areas comprise the most transit
dependent sections of Sacramento, where no light rail service is
available today.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the committee
for their fine work and urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that this bill does
not contain any earmarking of funds for high-priority highway
[[Page H6973]]
projects, often referred to as demonstration projects.
The reason I make note of this particular fact is that whenever funds
are earmarked for highway projects, some in the media, and some in this
body, call it pork barrel.
In fact, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my good
friend, advised Members earlier this year not to even bother testifying
before his subcommittee on highway project requests.
Yet, to be sure, as it turns out there are numerous earmarks for
other types of transportation projects.
For example, the bill earmarks over $724 million for 39 transit new
start projects.
The report accompanying this bill earmarks $333 million for 87 bus
projects under what is supposed to be a discretionary program.
In addition, the report directs $36.2 million to 16 specific
intelligent transportation system projects.
I could go on and on.
My colleagues, those earmarks alone amount to almost $1.2 billion
being directed by this bill toward specific projects.
$1.2 billion.
Ah, but not a one of them a so-called highway demonstration project.
For some reason that I have been unable to understand, the pork
barrel label is only applied by the media and some in this body to the
earmarking of funds for highway projects.
Meanwhile, the earmarking of funds for transit and ITS projects is
met with mute silence.
Now, to be clear, I had no project requests before the subcommittee.
I was not seeking highway project earmarks, or for that matter,
transit or ITS project earmarks.
And, I see nothing wrong with the Congress exercising its judgment
and directing funds to a specific transportation project. These are,
after all Federal funds and not State or local moneys.
However, I do want to illustrate the dual standard that is now being
applied.
I want to point this out because we are now operating under this dual
standard.
You can go to the Appropriations Committee to get an earmark of funds
for a transit project, that serves a locality, but you cannot go to the
Appropriations Committee for funding for a highway of an interstate
nature that needs an extra boost to be completed.
You can go to the Appropriations Committee to get an earmark of funds
for a bus station in some small town, but not for a four-lane highway
that crosses State lines.
Mr. Chairman, this dual standard simply makes no sense.
And, as we all know, dual standards are never fair.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3675)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________