[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7067-H7093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 456 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3675.

                              {time}  2127


                     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 further 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.

                              {time}  2130

  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
26, 1996, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 460 is 
adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $53,816,000, of which not to exceed $40,000 shall be 
     available as the Secretary may determine for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, there may be credited to this 
     appropriation up to $1,000,000 in funds received in user fees 
     established to support the electronic tariff filing system: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     Act or otherwise made available may be used to maintain 
     custody of airline tariffs that are already available for 
     public and departmental access at no cost; to secure them 
     against detection, alteration, or tampering; and open to 
     inspection by the Department.

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN, I have an amendment printed in the Record, which I will 
not offer if I can engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend, the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the chairman.
  I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I have received assurances 
from the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration that he 
intends to undertake, on behalf of the District of Columbia, a 
comprehensive transportation needs assessment for the District. Such a 
study is desperately needed by the District, and it would benefit the 
entire Washington area, because of the interconnection of all of our 
transportation systems. This study will be paid for with Federal funds.
  The administration is willing to conduct this study for the District 
because of the serious impact on traffic of the closure of Pennsylvania 
Avenue. I seek assurance from the chairman of the committee that he 
will work with the Federal Highway Administration to ensure that this 
study is conducted, that Congress and the District of Columbia 
government are consulted on the parameters of the study, that we are 
able to review the results before they are final, that it will be as 
comprehensive as necessary, and that it will be finished within a year.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his concern on this 
important matter. Indeed it is a matter of regional importance, and I 
share his interest. I want to commend him for bringing this to the 
committee's attention.
  I will tell him and guarantee him that I will work with him, the 
District, the Federal Highway Administration, and anybody else we have 
to work with to make sure it is done. I understand the Federal Highway 
Administration may take anywhere from 6 to 12 months and it will cost 
up to $1 million, but it is a great idea, and I am really glad the 
gentleman brought it to the attention of the committee.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the chairman for his assurances. I too understand 
that this is a major undertaking that may take as much as a year and $1 
million to complete. That is why I wanted to raise this matter on the 
floor. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee for his assurances 
and assistance.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] in a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, in the 1993 Congress we passed the Swift 
Rail Development Act, which directed the Secretary of Transportation to 
prescribe regulations regarding the sounding of train whistles or horns 
when trains approach and enter public highway-rail grade crossings. 
This authority has been delegated to the Federal Railroad 
Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, railroad safety is of the utmost importance to me and 
to all Members of Congress. At the same time, it seems clear that the 
FRA is expected to take into consideration the quality of life concerns 
of affected communities in developing and implementing regulations.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, safety is of paramount importance to me as well, and 
we would expect the FRA to take such concerns into consideration.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this would include an expectation that the 
FRA would document the impact on communities of any new requirements 
for the sounding of train whistles or horns at highway-rail grade 
crossings, and that in exercising its statutory authority to provide 
for exceptions to the horn sounding requirement, the FRA

[[Page H7068]]

would consider the safety records of individual highway-rail grade 
crossings and provide exceptions where there is no significant history 
of loss of life or serious personal injury.
  And further, this would include FRA's consideration of comprehensive 
local rail safety enforcement and public education programs as 
supplementary safety measures, and that, where it is determined that 
new physical supplementary safety measures are necessary, that the 
particular characteristics of each crossing and the views of the 
affected community would be considered in determining the practicality 
of a proposed supplementary safety measure.
  Finally, I would understand that this would include an expectation 
that the FRA would work in close partnership with communities affected 
by this law and provide such communities with technical assistance.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. It is the 
committee's intent that the FRA should incorporate the gentleman from 
Illinois's recommendation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, as well as the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee and the ranking Members, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], for the high level 
of consultation and cooperation with our Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure in developing this bill. Our committee's concerns 
have been addressed in a very fair manner, and I want to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 
Transportation Appropriations Bill.
  First and foremost, I want to thank Mr. Livingston, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. 
Coleman, and their staff for the high level of consultation and 
cooperation with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in 
developing this bill. The committee's concerns have been addressed in a 
very fair manner.
  Overall the bill balanced the need for a strong Federal role in 
transportation safety with the need to continue to invest in our 
Nation's infrastructure. At the same time, the committee had to develop 
a bill in a climate of tight budgets. They have done an admirable job 
and should be commended.
  For the Federal-Aid Highway Program, the funding level is being kept 
at the fiscal year 1996 level. The obligation limitation is kept to 
$17.5 billion--the highest level ever enacted but not at the ISTEA 
authorized level of $18.3 billion. There is no change to the exempt 
highway programs.
  Despite this level of funding, in fiscal year 1997 outlays from the 
highway account of the trust fund will still be $700 million below tax 
receipts. As I have repeatedly stated, it is unethical for us to 
collect dedicated user fees and not use them for their intended 
purpose.
  For the transit program, the overall level is also kept at the fiscal 
year 1996 level of $4 billion. This program helps modernize, and 
maintain our transit systems. It also helps build new systems. Good 
transit has an important role to play, especially in our large and 
congested cities. This bill will continue the Federal role in this mode 
of transportation.
  For aviation, the bill funds an increase of $254 million for 
operations. This increase will fund important safety functions and 
initiatives. The bill also provides funds to continue the modernization 
of the air traffic control system--a critical safety issue.
  Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, the committee cut funding 
for airport grants by 10 percent. I believe that there continue to be 
significant needs for additional investment in our airports for both 
safety and capacity reasons.
  For the Coast Guard the committee has ensured that there are 
sufficient funds to continue all its missions. We strongly support the 
Coast Guard's important role in drug interdiction. This is a vital 
Coast Guard mission that affects every community across this country. 
The bill also fully funds the State boat safety grant program which is 
critical to improving safety among recreational boaters.
  Unfortunately, funding for Amtrak has been reduced substantially. 
This reduced funding could jeopardize Amtrak's future and highlights 
the critical need for the reforms embodied in H.R. 1788, which was 
passed by the House last November. We continue to look forward to 
working with the Senate on this much-needed legislation. In addition, I 
hope when we consider a conference report we will provide additional 
funds.
  This is a good bill. Put together under difficult circumstances. I 
commend the gentleman from Virginia for his work in developing this 
bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The 
relationship has probably been as good or better than it has ever been, 
so I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I hope we can continue this 
relationship for many more years.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, as the House takes up consideration of the 
fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations bill (HR 3675), I want 
to explain the current law provisions governing expenditures from the 
Mass Transit Account and to clarify that HR 3675 does not amend current 
law with respect to those Trust Fund expenditures.
  By way of background, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
jurisdiction over provisions which amend the Internal Revenue Code 
Trust Funds, including the Mass Transit Account within the Highway 
Trust Fund. The Committee's jurisdiction is not limited to the 
financing of the Trust Funds. The Committee's jurisdiction includes the 
expenditure purposes of the Trust Funds. The role of the Committee on 
Ways and Means over the expenditure purposes of the Trust Fund Code 
acknowledges the long-standing agreement that Trust Fund spending 
purposes should be approved by the Committee responsible for raising 
dedicated revenues.
  The statutory provisions governing expenditures from the Mass Transit 
Account within the Highway Trust Fund were established in the 1982 
Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The Trust Fund expenditure 
purposes have been revised subsequently to reflect the purposes 
contained in authorizing legislation, most recently in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
  The expenditure purposes of the Mass Transit Account are found in the 
Internal Revenue Code section 9503(e)(3) which provides that 
``(A)mounts in the Mass Transit Account shall be available, as provided 
by appropriation Acts, for making capital or capital-related 
expenditures before October 1, 1997--including capital expenditures for 
new projects--in accordance with * * * [the 1991 Act and specified 
sections of Title 49] * * * as such Acts are in effect on the date of 
the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991.'' (Emphasis added.)
  As my colleagues will note, the Internal Revenue Code is very clear 
that expenditures from the Mass Transit Account are limited to capital 
and capital-related purposes. Interpretations of current law or 
proposed law which would expand expenditure purposes of the Mass 
Transit Account to include transit operating expenses under the Section 
18 Rural Assistance program are without statutory authority or 
Congressional intent. Finally, any new expenditure purposes from the 
Mass Transit Account would necessitate a conforming Internal Revenue 
Code amendment with the consent and approval of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the privilege of entering into a colloquy 
with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, as an early supporter of efforts to eliminate the 
Interstate Commerce Commission and to deregulate the motor carrier 
industry, I am committed to eliminating needless regulatory and 
paperwork burdens on that industry. As we know, last year Congress 
passed and President Clinton signed into law the Interstate commerce 
Commission Termination Act, which eliminated virtually all economic 
regulations to the motor carrier industry. The Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations played an important 
role in that process by eliminating the funding for outdated and 
unnecessary regulatory functions.
  However, I am concerned that one burdensome and costly element of the 
old regulatory regime remains: the requirement for financial reporting. 
The original requirement for financial reporting was to facilitate the 
ICC's statutory obligation to review and approve a motor carrier's 
rates. That function, rate regulation, no longer exists, and 
consequently, there is no longer a need to file this data for 
regulatory purposes.
  Federal law requires all trucking companies to have insurance or be 
approved as a self-insurer following a detailed financial review by 
USDOT. Neither of these provisions would be affected by eliminating 
financial reporting.
  It is my understanding that the insurance companies do not rely on 
these

[[Page H7069]]

reports because they are able to get more current and useful 
information through their policy application process.
  Mr. Chairman, while it would be my preference that we eliminate the 
requirement for financial reporting, I understand that the Department 
of Transportation currently is reviewing a number of reporting 
requirements, including financial reporting, with an eye toward 
streamlining those requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can direct the Department of Transportation 
to move expeditiously on that review, and to provide the Congress with 
justification for any continued requirement to provide financial 
information.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I share the interest of the gentleman from 
California. However, I am concerned that streamlining these reports 
could jeopardize or change the current levels of safety. As the 
gentleman knows, safety has been personally my number one and the 
number one issue for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. I believe 
the Department should include this aspect in its review, and the 
committee looks forward to receiving the information from the 
Department of Transportation and working with the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. PACKARD. I appreciate very much the gentleman's willingness to 
work with us.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, I appreciate his 
acceptance in allowing this colloquy or short discussion.
  I would also like to personally thank the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf] for his, at the outset, 
agreeability to looking at an issue that is very, very important to 
many people on this floor. It is also very important to our children 
and our grandchildren. That is the problem of illicit drugs coming into 
this country, both through our southwest border and through the 
Caribbean transit area through Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
  We also understand that the Coast Guard plays a very important role 
in the interdiction effort, and I would like to continue to work with 
the chairman to find ways we can increase efforts in interdiction; that 
the Nation must again identify and properly fund an effective drug 
interdiction effort, and especially in the Caribbean transit zone, as 
well as in the southwest portion of this country, and to look at the 
Coast Guard, how we can better work together and find those solutions.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I pledge I will give it every serious 
consideration. I commend the gentleman for his interest in this. I 
think Congress ought to know that the number of high school kids that 
are using drugs is probably much higher than we actually think. We had 
a drug conference in my district this past weekend with General 
McCafferey and a number of other people. In some of the schools, the 
use of drugs is up to 60 and 65 percent. Drugs are running rampant in 
this country.
  I do not know what the gentleman said is the best idea, but I will 
give it every consideration. I think the Congress, though, in dealing 
with this issue, ought to also look at the possibility of setting up 
strike forces which will go down into South America, into Bolivia, into 
Colombia, and into Peru, and seize the leaders of these drug cartels 
and bring them back to the United States, and put them on trial.
  But I commend the gentleman for his efforts, and the effort of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire, [Mr. Zeliff]. As the gentleman knows, we 
did note some of his concern and included certain items in the 
committee report. I will give this serious consideration.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The statistic is 
since 1992 to present there has been a 100-percent increase of 
teenagers that are on, for instance, just cocaine. I think it would be 
behoove everybody to study what is happening in some of the South 
American countries, and where there are successes and where there are 
not.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he 
is exactly right. One study showed that when asked, in one area there 
were 34 percent of the children using drugs, and their parents were 
asked did they think drug use was around, and only 14 percent though 
drug use was around. So it is coming back big time, and spiking up. I 
thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Due to an inadvertent error, the table on page 149 in the committee 
report indicates that funds allocated for Kalkaska, MI, are to be used 
for buses.
  Will the gentleman agree that the committee in fact intended that the 
funds be used for an intermodal facility?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that the funds 
provided for Kalkaska are to be used for an intermodal facility. I do 
agree with that.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] for his really fine work on this appropriations bill. I would 
like to take this time to voice my concerns regarding Amtrak's funding 
levels. Perhaps we can discuss it for a minute.
  I am very disappointed with Amtrak's funding levels included in the 
House transportation appropriations bill. If enacted, these cuts in the 
operating capital funding for fiscal year 1997 will force Amtrak to 
close a number of routes and curtail infrastructure investment. Such 
drastic cuts will not allow Amtrak to reach its goal of self-
sufficiency. To successfully accomplish this goal of self-sufficiency, 
while preserving the national passenger rail system, Amtrak must be 
provided with a secure and reliable source of capital funding.
  My colleague, the honorable gentlewoman from Connecticut, Nancy 
Johnson, has introduced H.R. 2789, the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust 
Fund Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill would establish a 
dedicate trust fund which would allow Amtrak to decrease its reliance 
on Federal operating capital more rapidly. This trust fund is not a new 
tax, nor would it contribute to the deficit. Instead, H.R. 2789 would 
redirect one-half cent from the existing gasoline tax in the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund into a dedicated capital fund 
for Amtrak.
  Without a dedicated funding source, Amtrak will be completely 
dependent upon the less than certain actions of Congress. This 
uncertainty hampers the corporation's ability to enter into long-term 
contracts and move towards fiscal self-sufficiency.

                              {time}  2145

  In order to enhance safety, increase reliability, and reduce 
operating costs, Amtrak must be able to rely on consistent funding.
  It is clear we all agree that Amtrak should be free of operating 
support and should have less dependence on Congress for its funding. 
However, without adequate capital funds or an alternative funding 
source now, Amtrak will forever be dependent on Congress and the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, and just to make a 
couple of comments. We, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] and I, 
working in a bipartisan way, the number one issue again that we dealt 
with was safety, safety whether it be Amtrak or safety whether it be 
the FAA.
  Second, we did not fund the Northeast Corridor because Amtrak has 
about $466 million that they have not used.
  The gentleman raises a very good point, though, and I want to just 
put it

[[Page H7070]]

on the record and maybe to go even a little further than the gentleman 
did. Amtrak will not make it unless there is a dedicated revenue 
source, and I agree with the gentleman.
  There is one thing, though, that I would caution on, and I have not 
looked at that legislation. There ought to be a half penny, a half cent 
for Amtrak, but it ought not be in competition coming out of mass 
transit. If we begin to do that, we are then going to be pitting the 
gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Foglietta, and New York, and Chicago, 
and L.A., and San Francisco, and Houston, et cetera, et cetera, against 
Amtrak. So if we are going to have a half a cent dedicated, it has to 
be done in such a way that it does not come out of mass transit.
  There is the opportunity for the one-half cent, but without a 
dedicated revenue source, Amtrak will not be able to rely on the 
appropriation process and it is going to fail. So if there is not one-
half cent, Amtrak is going to do under.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's caution about 
the half-cent source, and I do not disagree with that. I also 
appreciate the gentleman's great concern with this particular issue. I 
think it is going to take the efforts of all of us to come to the 
rescue, and in particular circumstance as we change away from operating 
to doing the capital funding. I think it can be done if we work 
together, and I absolutely believe it is a worthwhile cause. So I 
appreciate the gentleman's support.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Wolf] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, there is currently a provision in the bill which could 
allow the United States Coast Guard to sell property in Wildwood, NJ, 
currently used for the Electronic Engineering Center. This would be 
devastating for Wildwood, because the property represents one of the 
last remaining undeveloped areas of natural coastline in southern New 
Jersey and maybe in the entire State and is very environmentally 
sensitive.
  My community is very upset about even the potential of the Coast 
Guard selling this property. I understand it was proposed by the Coast 
Guard merely in order for them to help meet their budget targets.
  While I understand that the Coast Guard has budget concerns, I am 
committed to finding a solution which is acceptable to the community as 
a whole and protects the normal government service administration real 
property disposal procedure, which offers the property to other Federal 
agencies first and is environmentally sound.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. LoBiondo] bringing this to our attention. Coming originally from 
Philadelphia, I spent all of my summers down in Wildwood. The fact is I 
worked as a beach boy selling umbrellas in Wildwood one year, and I 
also worked in the amusement park in North Wildwood there, so I know 
the area that the gentleman is talking about. I appreciate him bringing 
this to my attention.
  This year we are going to vacation, though, in Avalon. But the 
language that was included in the budget request is a way to save 
money. We were not made aware of the local opposition to the coast 
Guard's proposal until the gentleman brought it to my attention.
  I understand the serious consequence of the proposal. I want to 
assure the gentleman that I will do whatever is necessary to address 
this problem in a manner that protects the normal GSA property disposal 
procedure and is satisfactory to the local community by the time this 
bill comes out of conference with the Senate.
  I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this matter. In fact, if 
it were not for the gentleman bringing this to our attention, this 
could have sailed by. Without his intervention, I am sure the Coast 
Guard proposal would have received little scrutiny or analysis. Now 
that we are aware of the problem, we will work over the coming weeks 
with the gentleman and his staff to satisfy the community's concern as 
we work toward a final solution.
  I would tell the gentleman, when he gets to Avalon, the best bake 
shop in Avalon is Kohler's. And if he gets a chance, stop by Kohler's.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I know the location well. I thank the gentleman, Mr. 
Chairman, for the assurance to do what is necessary to correct this 
problem. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this matter in 
a way which addresses the serious concerns of my constituents.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there are many here in this body who did not 
know that the proposed regulation in the Federal Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act in the 103d Congress will most likely cost the 
average farmer in America approximately $3,200. The overall impact of 
the regulation could exceed $7 billion.
  The Department of Transportation has proposed a regulation that would 
supersede every State exception grant to the agricultural industry in 
transferring of agricultural production material from either retail to 
farm or farm to farm.
  Besides the regulatory burdens of such a mandate, the enforcement is 
even less practical. Please note that most farmers take training 
classes to be certified every 5 years to even use many of these 
chemicals. Most States have had in place for years exceptions that 
allow retailers and farmers to transport regulated agrichemicals to the 
farms without having to placard their trucks, carry shipments, 
documents, and provide a 24-hour emergency response phone number.
  The rural local transportation of agrichemicals under these 
exceptions has allowed agribusiness and the farmers to move product 
efficiently and safely during the farming seasons. In fact, most of 
these chemicals are transferred during a short 2- to 4-week period. 
Without the same exceptions that have been granted to the industry in 
the transfer of such chemicals in the past, farmers will have had to 
abide by time-consuming, burdensome and costly regulations. Such 
regulations will not make our rural roads safer, but only increase the 
cost of doing business, cause confusion and require useless paperwork.

  The penalty for not abiding by the regulations can run between a 
$2,500 to a $10,000 fine per violation.
  Today I was going to offer an amendment that would simply have 
retained the current intrastate exceptions by limiting the use of such 
funds appropriated. The one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize 
the unique seasonal and real nature of these businesses.
  Second, by States already allowing such exceptions, they have weighed 
the concerns and found the risks to be minimal.
  Finally, my amendment would have allowed each State to determine if 
they want to continue the exception for the transfer of such chemicals 
from retail to farm and from farm to farm if they so decide.
  To those in this business, it is just another bureaucratic nightmare 
that the cost of such a proposed regulation outweights the benefits. To 
me, this is a bigger and more intrusive government. We eliminated the 
Interstate Commerce Commission and deregulated the areas of the 
trucking industry. Now we must continue our efforts to lessen the 
regulations on farms who transfer these agricultural production 
materials 2 to 4 weeks a year.
  I will be back to offer this amendment in a more appropriate vehicle 
and hope that my colleagues in the future will join in this endeavor to 
reduce the burdensome regulation from the Federal level. I look forward 
to working with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] on this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $5,574,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, and development 
     activities, to remain available until expended, $3,000,000.

[[Page H7071]]

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to 
     exceed $124,812,000, shall be paid from appropriations made 
     available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That 
     such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to 
     entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the above limitation on operating expenses 
     shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That 
     no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the 
     Department shall be transferred to the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center without the approval of the 
     agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no 
     assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

            (including rescission of contract authorization)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for payments to air 
     carriers of so much of the compensation fixed and determined 
     under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as is payable by the Department of Transportation, 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended and to be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs in excess of 
     $10,000,000 for the Payments to Air Carriers program in 
     fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be used by the Secretary of Transportation to 
     make payment of compensation under subchapter II of chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, in excess of the 
     appropriation in this Act for liquidation of obligations 
     incurred under the ``Payments to air carriers'' program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     used for the payment of claims for such compensation except 
     in accordance with this provision: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for service 
     to communities in the forty-eight contiguous States that are 
     located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest 
     large or medium hub airport, or that require a rate of 
     subsidy per passenger in excess of $200 unless such point is 
     greater than two hundred and ten miles from the nearest large 
     or medium hub airport: Provided further, That of funds 
     provided for ``Small Community Air Service'' by Public Law 
     101-508, $28,600,000 in fiscal year 1997 is hereby rescinded.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                              (rescission)

       Of the budgetary resources remaining available under this 
     heading, $1,133,000 are rescinded.

                            Rental Payments

       For necessary expenses for rental of headquarters and field 
     space not to exceed 8,580,000 square feet and for related 
     services assessed by the General Services Administration, 
     $127,447,000: Provided, That of this amount, $2,022,000 shall 
     be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, $39,113,000 shall be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $840,000 
     shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, and $193,000 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: 
     Provided further, That in addition, for assessments by the 
     General Services Administration related to the space needs of 
     the Federal Highway Administration, $17,294,000, to be 
     derived from ``Federal-aid Highways'', subject to the 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses''.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, as authorized by 
     49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $15,000,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of the Minority Business Resource 
     Center outreach activities, $2,900,000, of which $2,635,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1998: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used 
     for business opportunities related to any mode of 
     transportation.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $2,609,100,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: Provided, 
     That the number of aircraft on hand at any one time shall not 
     exceed two hundred and eighteen, exclusive of aircraft and 
     parts stored to meet future attrition: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act shall 
     be available for pay or administrative expenses in connection 
     with shipping commissioners in the United States: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 
     46 U.S.C. 12109, except to the extent fees are collected from 
     yacht owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the Commandant shall reduce both military and 
     civilian employment levels for the purpose of complying with 
     Executive Order No. 12839.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $358,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which 
     $205,600,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate 
     or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001; $18,300,000 shall 
     be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 1999; 
     $39,900,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1999; $47,950,000 shall be 
     available for shore facilities and aids to navigation 
     facilities, to remain available until September 30, 1999; and 
     $46,250,000 shall remain available for personnel compensation 
     and benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1998: Provided, That funds received from the 
     sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft shall be credited to 
     this appropriation for the purpose of acquiring new aircraft 
     and increasing aviation capacity: Provided further, That the 
     Commandant may dispose of surplus real property by sale or 
     lease and the proceeds of such sale or lease shall be 
     credited to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     property in Wildwood, New Jersey shall be disposed of in a 
     manner resulting in a final fiscal year 1997 appropriation 
     estimated at $338,000,000: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to continue 
     the ``Vessel Traffic Service 2000'' Program.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


                             (rescissions)

       Of the available balances under this heading provided in 
     Public Law 104-50, $3,400,000 are rescinded.
       Of the available balances under this heading provided in 
     Public Law 103-331, $355,000 are rescinded.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $16,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for 
     payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. 
     ch. 55) $608,084,000.

                            Reserve Training

       For all necessary expenses for the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $65,890,000.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $19,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $5,020,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation funds received from State and local 
     governments, other public authorities, private sources, and 
     foreign countries, for expenses incurred for research, 
     development, testing, and evaluation.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through 
page 10, line 20, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

       For payment of necessary expenses incurred for recreational 
     boating safety assistance under Public Law 92-75, as amended,

[[Page H7072]]

     $35,000,000, to be derived from the Boat Safety Account and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $5,000,000 is 
     available only for the Coast Guard to establish a 
     discretionary boating safety grant program.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the language 
beginning with the colon on page 10, line 25 through ``program'' on 
page 11, line 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this provision sets aside $5 million of the 
appropriation for recreational boating safety for the new discretionary 
boating safety grant program. This is not authorized by law and is 
contrary to the distribution of funds under existing law and, 
therefore, is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I can concede the point of order. The provision is 
legislation on an appropriations bill. However, I would like to explain 
that the committee feels strongly that the Coast Guard should be more 
active in using this grant program to promoting safety, rather than 
simply sending checks out by formula, as is currently the case.
  I understand that this program must be reauthorized next year, and I 
would ask that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] take a 
look at the establishment of the discretionary grant program which will 
receive strong consideration by the subcommittee next year going to 
reauthorization. Such a program will not cost any more money, and it 
could improve boat safety, because it would put money where the problem 
is.
  Again, as the gentleman from Texas knows, we increased boat safety 
money by over 50 percent in this bill. We thought this way it would get 
the Coast Guard more involved to be much more aggressive working in the 
boat safety area.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in continuing that 
dialogue with my friend from Virginia on this issue.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded. The point of order is 
sustained. The provisions subject to the point of order are stricken.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest that the report accompanying H.R. 
3675 refers to the vessel traffic service system, a VTS 2000. The 
committee denied the fiscal year 1997 funding request for the VTS 2000 
and disallowed the use of the unallocated fiscal year 1996 funds to 
continue developmnt of the program.
  This is a program in which government and industry have made 
significant investments. However, the system as now envisioned was not 
favorably considered by the committee. Nevertheless, the committee did 
suggest that the Coast Guard develop a follow-on program as soon as 
possible to avoid further delay in bringing this valuable technology to 
the Nation's ports and waterways.
  I would hope that the distinguished chairman would favorably consider 
allowing the Coast Guard to use prior year funding to facilitate this 
effort.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my distinguished colleague's 
remarks. The safety of our ports and waterways is of extreme 
importance, and this committee has always placed the highest priority 
on achieving a higher degree of safety. I note the gentleman's concern 
and assure him that the conference will weight it carefully in its 
deliberations.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind 
consideration of this matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will further read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                               operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities 
     and the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, and carrying out the provisions of subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, or other 
     provisions of law authorizing the obligation of funds for 
     similar programs of airport and airway development or 
     improvement, lease or purchase of four passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $4,900,000,000, of which 
     $1,642,500,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $30,000,000 from additional 
     user fees to be established by the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections and used for 
     necessary and authorized expenses under this heading: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     1997, to result in a final fiscal year 1997 appropriation 
     from the general fund estimated at not more than 
     $2,127,398,000: Provided further, That the only additional 
     user fees authorized as offsetting collections are fees for 
     services provided to aircraft that neither take off from, nor 
     land in, the United States: Provided further, That there may 
     be credited to this appropriation, funds received from 
     States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the provision of agency services, including 
     receipts for the maintenance and operation of air navigation 
     facilities and, for issuance, renewal or modification of 
     certificates, including airman, aircraft, and repair station 
     certificate, or for tests related thereto, or for processing 
     major repair or alteration forms: Provided further, That 
     funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a 
     nonprofit standard setting organization to assist in the 
     development of aviation safety standards: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new 
     applicants for the second career training program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for paying premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to 
     any Federal Aviation Administration employee unless such 
     employee actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the 
     contiguous United States: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund may be 
     used to support the operations and activities of the 
     Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
and engage the Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, the FAA's Mike Monroney Center in Oklahoma City is the 
Nation's premier air traffic controller training center. The FAA 
recently rewarded a contract to the University of Oklahoma, under an 
open competitive process and open evaluation procedure, to conduct air 
traffic controller training at the Monroney Center.
  At a time when the public is particularly concerned about air traffic 
safety standards and the procedures that support those standards, I 
would like to confirm, Mr. Chairman, that the 1997 transportation 
appropriation includes sufficient funds to fully implement this FAA 
contract, and that this much-needed training can go forward at the 
Monroney Center.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this to 
our attention. The air traveling public relies to a great extent on the 
quality of the training of our air traffic controllers.
  I assure the gentleman from Oklahoma I will work with him to assure 
that the final appropriation level provides adequate funding for this 
contract, while not undermining support for the MARC program in 
Minnesota. I believe this can be accomplished, and I will work with the 
gentleman to achieve that goal as we go through the process. I 
appreciate the fact that he was alert and caught this. I thank him very 
much. We will work together to solve the problem.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that 
assurance and I appreciate his efforts.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7073]]

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Watts] for bringing up this matter, and I thank Chairman Wolf for 
allowing the colloquy. I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks made by Mr. Watts, and would like to reiterate my support for 
retaining the $1.7 million for the academy in Oklahoma City. I hope 
this can be addressed during conference and that Members will the 
language in last year's conference report.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr.Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek this time to bring to the attention of the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman a matter of great concern to many 
of my constituents.
  First of all, I would like to say I am a supporter of the mission of 
the Coast Guard. They do good work. They have saved many lives and 
prevented injuries to people and prevented property damage by their 
fine efforts. However, I believe the Coast Guard has overreached in one 
area, that is, its efforts to enforce the Commercial Fishing Vessel 
Industry Safety Act.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard has issued regulations 
which are totally inflexible. They do not distinguish between large, 
deep water boats that operate all year and boats that are 50 feet or 
less in length, carry three or fewer people, stay 12 to 50 miles 
offshore, and operate only in the less dangerous summer fishing season.
  These regulations are so complex and extensive that compliance is 
virtually impossible. One particularly egregious example is the 
requirement that these vessels be equipped with a life raft, sold only 
by 1 manufacturer, that is extremely costly.
  I also question, Mr. Chairman, the way in which these regulations are 
being enforced. Coast Guard personnel on the West Coast have harassed 
law-abiding commercial fishermen by conducting armed safety inspections 
at sea.
  This show of force is, in my view, unnecessary--and that is as a 
former police officer and deputy sheriff--and places an unproductive 
burden on these individuals who are already having a hard time making a 
living. One alternative approach apparently not given serious 
consideration by the Coast Guard is voluntary dockside inspections with 
fix-it type tickets instead of fines.
  Mr. Chairman, the important commercial fishing industry along 
California's north coast is suffering already from a downturn in the 
industry and, in my view, overregulation by the Federal Government. I 
call this to your attention so that the chairman and his subcommittee 
can be aware of how some of the Coast Guard's resources are being 
applied.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to 
our attention. As the committee proceeds in its oversight of the Coast 
Guard's budget, we will review the practices that he highlighted.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his concern.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record two news items reflecting the 
problems that commercial fisherman are facing, and which I discussed in 
this colloquy with the distinguished subcommittee chairman this 
evening:

                [From the Times Standard, May 21, 1996]

           Coast Guard Backs Away From Faceoff With Fisherman

       Santa Cruz.--The U.S. Coast Guard backed away from its 
     standoff with a fisherman who claimed a routine boat 
     inspection would violate his constitutional rights.
       The case was turned over to the Justice Department and the 
     Coast Guard took no action against Jim Blaes of Atascadero, 
     who had refused to allow a safety inspection of the 36-foot 
     Helja.
       ``Our latest tactic is that we are going to leave him alone 
     and let the Justice Department handle it.'' Coast Guard Chief 
     Warrant Officer Jerry Snyder said Monday afternoon. ``The 
     boats are breaking off right now.''
       The bizarre face-off between the Coast Guard and Blaes 
     began Sunday afternoon, in clear sight of beachgoers crowding 
     the Santa Cruz boardwalk.
       Blaes refused to allow Coast Guard officers aboard for the 
     inspection, saying he viewed his boat the same way he felt 
     about his home ashore and insisting the Coast Guard needed a 
     warrant.
       ``Just because I make my living at sea doesn't mean I give 
     up my constitutional rights,'' he said. ``I have never been 
     in trouble. I'm not holding anybody hostage or anything.''
       Blaes piloted the Morro Bay-based Helja out of the harbor 
     Monday morning with the Coast Guard cutter Chico and a 
     smaller boat trailing.
       I just want to be left alone and have them stay out of my 
     face,'' Blaes said in one of a number of cellular telephone 
     interviews with area reporters.
       Blaes said he had a handgun aboard, but said it was for 
     protection from sharks. He said he was ``absolutely'' not a 
     member of a militant group.
       ``I will not allow my civil rights to be violated,'' Blaes 
     said earlier in a call monitored by reporters. ``I think 
     enough of the Constitution of the United States to give up my 
     life for it. If you think enough of it to give up your life 
     to violate it, then come ahead.''
                                                                    ____


                [From the Times Standard, May 23, 1996]

      Local Fishermen Say Coast Guard Pesters Them in Inspections

                          (By David Anderson)

       Eureka.--The standoff between a Morro Bay salmon fisherman 
     and the Coast Guard reflects long-standing frictions between 
     fishermen and the federal government, fishing industry 
     spokesmen say.
       But a Coast Guard officer said the Santa Cruz incident, in 
     which fisherman Jim Blaes refused to let a Coast Guard 
     boarding party on his boat earlier this week, was an 
     irrational response to a routine situation. Boarding rights 
     are long established in law, the officer said, and are 
     necessary to the Coast Guard's law enforcement rule.
       Officials of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
     Associations, in Eureka, on Tuesday, disagreed.
       ``Most of the fishing fleet is fed up with the bureaucracy 
     and the regulations they encounter almost daily,'' federation 
     President Pietro Parravano said. ``We understand the need for 
     and support measures necessary to protect our fish stocks and 
     regulations essential to safety at sea.
       ``But it is frustrating when the government is all over our 
     boats looking for the slightest infraction of any kind.''
       Zeke Grader, executive director of the fishermen's 
     federation, said the boarding of fishing vessels has long 
     been a sore spot. Fishermen contend that their boats should 
     enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protections against 
     warrantless searches as private residences.
       Grader compared the boarding of a fishing boat to conduct 
     safety inspections with an intrusion of firemen into a home 
     to inspect smoke alarms.
       ``It really doesn't matter whether they're courteous or 
     not, or whether fire prevention is a laudable goal,'' Grader 
     said. ``The fact is, there are intruders in your house and 
     your privacy has been violated.''
       Coast Guard Cmdr. John Miko said vessels at sea never have 
     or could have the immunity from search that private 
     residences enjoy. Laws dating back to the 1790s, constantly 
     upheld in court rulings, affirm that the Coast Guard has the 
     right to stop, board and search any vessel in U.S. waters and 
     any U.S. vessel on the high seas. The Coast Guard does not 
     require court-issued warrants or ``probable cause'' to 
     believe a crime is being committed, he said.
       All maritime nations have similar laws, Miko noted.
       ``Without that right, there's no way law could be enforced 
     at sea,'' he said, ``That's been recognized by courts 
     throughout history.''
       The Coast Guard is charged with preventing smuggling of 
     illegal immigrants, drugs and other contraband; enforcing 
     fishing regulations; conducting safety inspections; and other 
     law enforcement duties, he said. All these require boarding 
     and inspecting boats.
       Jimmy Smith, president of the Humboldt Bay Fishermen's 
     Association, said his members' disagreements with the Coast 
     Guard are at the national, not the local level.
       ``The guys at the Humboldt Bay station are terrific,'' 
     Smith said. ``We have a great relationship with them and they 
     really extend themselves to help us. Our problems are all 
     with Washington.''
       Smith said the fisherman's federation has proposed 
     alternatives to safety inspections at sea, but that the 
     Department of Transportation--which includes the Coast Guard 
     during peacetime--rejected them.
       Boat owners can volunteer for safety inspection in port, 
     Miko said, but a boat is only required to have safety 
     equipment when it's at sea.
       ``You can't cite someone for not having it when they're 
     tied up at the docket,'' He said.
       Fishermen also question the necessity and efficacy of some 
     of the safety equipment they are required to carry, Smith 
     said.
       The equipment is recommended by a national fishing vessel 
     safety committee on which safety equipment manufacturers are 
     represented, but not small-boat owners, he said.
       The committee has declined to consider less-expensive 
     methods of improving safety at sea, Smith said. The equipment 
     the committee recommended, which is now required, is 
     invariably expensive and doesn't always work well, he said.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H7074]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar: Page 11, line 17, before 
     ``, of which'', insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $1 million from 
the $40 million appropriation the bill provides for the Office of 
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation and transfer that 
$1 million to the Operations account of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to increase the funding for FAA training of its 
inspector work force. This amendment responds to concerns expressed by 
the Inspector General herself, it responds to concerns and alarms 
expressed nationwide in the aftermath of ValuJet and to concerns that I 
expressed over 2 years ago about the adequacy of FAA's inspector work 
force in inspecting new entrant carriers.
  The President's budget for the Inspector General's office included 
$1.9 million for that office to contract out with other government 
agencies to conduct audits of DOT programs. The Appropriations 
Committee bill cut the President's request for the Inspector General by 
$321,000 and, concurrently, prohibited the Inspector General from 
contracting for audits. The Appropriations Committee instead directed 
DOT's various operating units to pay the cost of these contract audits 
out of their own funds. The result is that the Committee on 
Appropriations has relieved the IG of expenses totaling $1.9 million 
for audit contracts but they reduced the IG's funding by only $321,000. 
The net effect is that the office of the IG has $1.6 million in excess 
funding over what the administration requested. This excess amount, $1 
million of it, is what I target in this amendment to be transferred to 
a function that the IG's office itself, the General Accounting Office, 
and our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in our hearings 
in this Congress and the previous Congress have identified as crucial.
  I was astonished when I looked closely at the IG's office to find 
that they have 440 full-time equivalent employees. That is more, by 
almost 100 employees, than the entire National Transportation Safety 
Board has. I question the need for such a large staff when DOT and its 
various modal administrations are already under scrutiny and oversight 
by the National Transportation Safety Board, by the General Accounting 
Office, and by the Congress.
  An internal watchdog agency certainly is necessary within the 
Department to keep all modal administrations on the straight and 
narrow. We need to have adequate funding for that function, and provide 
effective oversight. But in these times of fiscal constraints, when 
money is being shifted very tightly among accounts, where we have to 
come in, we in the authorizing committee, and identify needs that 
require more funding and then take it from the existing pot, here is a 
piece of the existing pot that has an excess amount of money, no 
purpose for it has been identified, and shift that money to where it 
will do an enormous amount of good.

  The committee has already made a number of increases in the funding 
for the account, the operations account of FAA, but not for this 
training function. The need is real. I want to take a moment to just 
explain how real and how important.
  Over the last 10 years, GAO, the Inspector General's office, internal 
FAA groups, and our own Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
have focused on needs for technical training within the FAA, training 
for its inspectors.
  In 1989 and in 1992, GAO and the IG respectively reported that 
inspectors who did not have appropriate training or current 
qualifications were doing flight checks of pilots. An operations 
inspector asked for Airbus 320 training when a carrier he was 
responsible for training began using that aircraft. He did not get that 
training until 2 years after that air carrier went out of business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Another maintenance inspector responsible for 
overseeing air carriers and repair stations that operate 737s, 757s, 
767s, and McDonnell Douglas MD-80s said he had not received a course on 
maintenance and electronics in 5 years. There are rampant training 
deficiencies that exist because they do not have enough money to do 
that training. This $1 million is only a part of the $8 million that 
GAO said is needed to meet the unfunded training needs for the FAA.
  All of us fly in this body. All of us take aircraft, whether major 
airlines or commuters or regional carriers. We all want to know that 
those carriers are being inspected carefully, responsibly and 
effectively and that those aircraft are safe and that they are being 
maintained in a safe manner.
  Members who believe that ought to support this amendment, to shift 
the money where it will do a great deal of good into the training 
function, provide adequate training and recurrent training for 
maintenance and avionics inspectors in the FAA to oversee those air 
carriers, especially the new entrant carriers. That is where the need 
is. That is where the contracting out of maintenance is being done and 
where it is not being adequately supervised with people who have 
adequate training. A modest $1 million out of this excess amount in the 
office of IG will address this vital funding deficiency. I urge support 
for my amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  First of all it does not put the money in training. It can be used 
for coffee, cokes, travel, or anything else.
  Second, it would viewed as a way of punishing the inspector general 
for giving the opinions that Congress may not like. I have not always 
agreed with the IG's of the Department. But if they start doing that 
and we do not like what they have done, it looks like we are punishing 
the IG for their opinions which could be a grave mistake. We ask for 
them to be impartial, we ask for them to be independent, we ask for 
tough opinions, and then if we punish them, the political process 
stands this whole ethical thing upside down. This would undermine the 
IG process, not only in this department but governmentwide. It would 
send a devastating message to IG's everywhere. They would say, ``Uh-oh. 
We give a report, they don't like it, we better be careful, we're going 
to get a budget cut. It would be very, very bad. Don't rock the boat. 
They're going to offer an amendment. They're going to cut my 
appropriations.''
  If we adopt this amendment, we are punishing the IG who raised the 
whole issue of ValuJet. Maybe the FAA should have listened to here 
before they did it. You recall Secretary Pena got up and said ValuJet 
is wonderful. They went on and on. this IG is the one who brought this 
to our attention.
  Second, this is the IG that brought out the training problems which 
ended up in Gregory may, New Age cult-like, going to jail. This IG, for 
those of you who fly, is the one who found out and raised the issue of 
bogus parts, that are now being used in major airlines which may very 
well result in airplanes crashing. This IG is the one that came out 
with the diversion of money from airports around the country.
  I just think it would be sending a message to the American people 
that here is an IG that the gentleman, and I know he does not mean this 
in a mean-spirited way, does not agree with her, maybe there are times 
that I will not agree with her, but just because they come up with this 
idea, you punish them.
  The IG's budget is not fat. In fact over the past 3 years the IG has 
taken a 40-percent reduction in administrative staff, more than any 
other part of the Department of Transportation. Let me just say it 
again. The IG has taken a bigger hit than any other area of the 
Department of Transportation. They have taken an overall cut of 11 
percent in staffing. Again, more than any other area. They have met the 
President's downsizing goals 3 years ahead of schedule. In fact, this 
administration, some may say, has been unfair to the IG. This is what 
she said during the hearings:

       We led the department in meeting the Vice President's 
     reinventing government

[[Page H7075]]

     downsizing goals. Instead of being rewarded for that, we were 
     on many cases heaped with more cuts. We think those 
     additional cuts were unfair because we willingly, and quite 
     in advance of the rest of the department, took those cuts 
     that the rest of the government was supposed to be taking. 
     Unfortunately, it only worked to our disadvantage.

  It is lean, it is careful, the appropriation is already 2 percent 
below last year's level, 1 percent below the administration's request.

                              {time}  2215

  Keep in mind, OMB already reduced the IG's request for the internal 
budget process by $1.4 million. I know what the gentleman is trying to 
do, or at least I think I do, but this would be chilling. If this were 
to pass, no IG in the government could ever honestly and legitimately 
feel that they could give an honest opinion, because then they know 
that when their budget comes up, that if somebody were angry at them, 
that they were going to cut their budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment. We can almost argue 
that this is a major safety issue. This is a safety amendment, in some 
respects. The gentleman's amendment does not put it in training. It can 
be used for bonuses, it can be used for anything else. This IG's office 
has been the one on ValuJet, the one on bogus parts and on many others, 
and I urge the defeat of the amendment because we do not want to punish 
anybody for being honest and courageous and candid.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Mr. Oberstar.
  Tuesday, the House Aviation Subcommittee held an 8-hour hearing on 
issues raised by the crash of ValuJet flight 592. In preparing for the 
hearing, we took a long look at the FAA and its inspection program. We 
recognize that there is a need for improvements in the system, and this 
amendment is intended to give the FAA the resources it needs to make 
those improvements.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota increases the 
appropriation for FAA operations by $1 million, and our expectation is 
that this additional funding will be dedicated to airline safety 
inspector training.
  This $1 million increase for inspector training will be possible 
through a reduction in funding for the Department of Transportation 
inspector general's budget from $40 million to $39 million. The Office 
of the Inspector General has publicly stated the need for improved 
inspector training. This amendment makes that possible.
  Currently, the IG's office is funded at a level to provide 440 full 
time equivalent employees. Compare this figure with the 350 full time 
equivalents currently at the National Transportation Safety Board. 
While I recognize the important work done by IG's in every Federal 
agency, it seems excessive to me to have almost 100 more employees in 
the IG's office at DOT than are employed at the NTSB.
  Mr. Chairman, the inspection program at the FAA needs to be 
adequately funded to do its critical work. This slight increase in 
funding today may well save lives tomorrow. If you believe that the 
FAA's inspectors should have training, you should support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, while I have the floor, I would like to take a moment 
to call to the attention of my colleagues some of the inspector 
general's statements at Tuesday's hearing. In the course of her 
remarks, she left the strong impression that Secretary of 
Transportation Pena was the subject of a criminal investigation 
relative to the ValuJet accident. Even when my good friend Chairman 
Duncan warned her that she might be giving a false impression and gave 
her the opportunity to clear it up, she simply said that she could not 
say anything more.
  Mr. Chairman, creating the impression that the Secretary of 
Transportation is criminally culpable, is a very serious action, and 
anyone who falsely does so should be held responsible. As you would 
expect, the impression left in fact turned out not to be correct. Later 
that day, the deputy inspector general and the assistant inspector 
general for investigations, both longtime career officials, issued 
public statements that the Secretary of Transportation is not, and has 
not been, a subject of investigation.
  It is one thing to call public attention to safety problems with the 
FAA. It is entirely another thing to make outrageous, exaggerated 
claims about a public official. There were plenty of other examples 
from our hearing of what I find to be unconstructive comments by the 
inspector general, but I felt this one should be highlighted for all 
the Members of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would like to mention the fact that I personally 
asked her to name the other airlines that she felt were unsafe. She 
refused to do so; even when I asked her to protect the American flying 
public that she owed that answer, she refused to do so. The great 
concern she had about ValuJet she failed to communicate to the head of 
the FAA, to the Secretary of Transportation.
  I believe that, unfortunately, we are dealing with someone here who 
is making charges but refuses to back up the charges and does not 
really carry out her duty, and I think this $1 million reduction in her 
budget moving to the FAA is definitely warranted.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me only echo some of the statements made by the 
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. We have a good deal 
of concern in our committee that, as I know all appropriation 
subcommittees do and all authorizing committees do, that all inspectors 
general retain their independence, maintain their capability to give 
reports to those who ask for them in an honest and straightforward way.
  My understanding of the Oberstar amendment was not in any way 
directed toward this specific inspector general to suggest that there 
should be some form of punishment. I think the chairman alluded to use 
the word ``punishment'' of an individual or of a specific office 
because we might not like her report. I hope that is not the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
so that he could clarify that point if he would like.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear, this is not punishment. 
This is not chilling. There is $1,900,000 more than the President's 
request in this account, a $321,000 cut, a net of $1.6 million not 
identified, not targeted, no explanation, no justification, and over 
here on the other side is the FAA with a need for training.
  The chairman knows that under the rules of engagement in the 
appropriation process, I cannot identify a specific account in 
designating this $1 million and shifting it. So that is why we are 
having this dialog, to make it very clear that this money goes for 
training of those inspectors who are the very ones charged with the 
responsibility of overseeing new-entrance carriers and who need 
training in those specific areas that I mentioned.
  If one is trained on DC-9's and is suddenly assigned to inspect 
aircraft or airlines that are flying 737's, or 757's or 767's, one 
needs training in that arena. This account does not have that kind of 
funding. In fact, it is $8 million short, by GAO standards, of the 
amount of training needed for those inspectors.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just want the body to know, though, that 
this is the IG that broke the story that was in Business Week 3 weeks 
ago showing that many of the major airlines unknowingly are using bogus 
parts that are potentially very dangerous. What if she did not have the 
money to do that and we did not know and an airplane crashed?
  This is the IG that has been the subject of raising very valid issues 
with regard to ValuJet. I take the gentleman at his word, but having 
been a Government employee, having worked for the Government for a 
number of years, believe me, it would be chilling if one were a 
Government employee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

[[Page H7076]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on that score, it was the Subcommittee on 
Aviation and prior to that the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation that 
uncovered the bogus parts issue in great depth and had documentation on 
it, brought it up with the IG who said, ``Oh, we are on to this issue 
also. We have some criminal investigations underway.'' This is over 2 
years ago. Three years ago prior to that our committee was onto this 
issue.
  I cast no aspersions on the IG, but much of what the IG's office has 
uncovered and has taken credit for the appropriate and responsible 
committees of the house and the Senate have already been focused on.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Reclaiming my time, let me only suggest that in any 
event, should the Committee of the whole make a determination that we 
wanted to shift $1 million from one account to another, I think all of 
us would agree that the goal of the House of Representatives is to do 
what this amendment seeks to do, and that is to provide the necessary 
dollars to get the necessary training in the new technologies for those 
personnel that we ask to be certified in order to get the additional 
training for FAA certification.
  So I would hope that the Members, whether they agree to shift this $1 
million from the accounts that the author of the amendment would 
suggest or not, understand that and I know it will be the intention of 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and me in the conference. We do 
not know, of course, what any Senate numbers are and what they will be 
of the other body. So I think that we will certainly be looking to do 
all that we can possibly do in trying to get the kind of certified 
staff the training they need to ensure their competence in new 
technologies.
  I hope that the minority in this House will help enhance the safety 
of the traveling public by adopting the Oberstar amendment. As I say, 
in conference, whether we do or we do not make this shift from the IG's 
office is not really of paramount importance.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  It promotes safety. It does so by shifting only about 2.5 percent of 
the IG's budget to a side of the budget that clearly, both in the 
ValuJet hearings and at other times, have been raised as a real 
concern, which is the training of safety inspectors and what that means 
to the traveling public.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that he is right on point in that regard, and I 
associate myself with his remarks and those of the gentleman from 
Illinois, [Mr. Lipinski] the ranking member of the subcommittee on 
aviation. But I think having heard some of the comments, it is often a 
good trial tactic to raise questions about chilling effects, and 
anybody's budget who is cut or somehow altered can claim that they are 
going to have a chilling effect.
  It was interesting to me to hear the IG come before the committee and 
in her comments say, ``Well, I hear that I am here because Members want 
to get a piece of my hide,'' and in doing that, it is sort of like 
chilling the members of the committee not to raise certain questions 
or, in this case, chilling the members of this body not to consider a 
serious and well-though-out amendment.
  During the hearings on safety issues raised by the ValuJet accident, 
and I am sure that the body is aware of the allegations made by the 
Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, this individual 
stated that the Everglades crash was preventable and that the DOT IG 
office had made six reports which pointed out the problems. The 
testimony to me sounded heroic and prophetic.

                              {time}  2230

  But under scrutiny it was merely the verbal tricks of a false profit. 
Under questioning from me and others, I asked the IG if she had ever 
raised these questions with Secretary Pena or Administrator Hinson. The 
answer was no. No.
  Would any Member of this body in possession of information that would 
have prevented an airplane crash hesitate to raise this issue and call 
for a meeting? There were no meetings because there were no unheeded 
predictions. The notoriety of the IG is based on vague generalizations 
that could have applied to any accident. It is an old trick to boldly 
assert the vague and then take credit for special insight when anything 
remotely related occurs.
  If that was not bad enough, the DOT IG then relied on the tactics of 
the witch hunter by making vague references of criminal investigations 
and by innuendo casting a false light on Secretary Pena and the FAA. 
This IG then demonstrated, I think, the most blatant attempt for 
Congress by refusing to elaborate because of the pendency of an alleged 
criminal investigation.
  Well, let us talk about the facts. The fact is that Inspector 
Generals are not empowered to make criminal investigations. They have 
no independent criminal prosecutorial authority. They can make 
recommendations when the have evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, just 
like any other citizen can, but they have no special privilege to 
refuse to answer congressional inquiries.

  Fact. Subsequently, the Assistant IG for Investigations of the DOT 
issued a clarification that ``The Secretary is not and has not been a 
subject of the investigation.''
  I think that the carnival atmosphere that we saw in the committee and 
this whole way the person who we believe should be the voice of 
investigating has created around the ValuJet has a downside. Given the 
pendency of litigation related to the grounding, I think the 
injudicious remarks of the DOT IG may have totally compromised and 
prejudiced the case, hardly the result a true investigator or a 
guardian of the public's safety and want.
  I believe the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should 
compel the IG's testimony that she refused to give us. She has made a 
lot of broad statements. I think we should see the specifics. But until 
such time as the committee acts to get answers, I believe the Oberstar 
amendment is totally appropriate by providing the resources to airline 
safety inspector training that clearly was identified as one of the 
major issues, whether it be ValuJet or a problem of the FAA in general. 
And that is the essence of his amendment and, in fact, we should 
proceed forward with it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Was it not true within the hearings, irregardless of what the 
IG insinuated or what others may have insinuated, the preliminary 
report by the National Transportation Safety Board clearly states that 
they do not think it was the fault of ValuJet for the accident that 
happened in the Everglades, but that of a mistake of an out source 
contractor?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it certainly 
appeared, although the National Transportation Safety Board has not 
given a final answer, it certainly appeared from the testimony that was 
elicited this was not a question per se, on this specific incident, of 
the question of the safety issues but rather a question of the 
canisters put on board.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we should be supporting the Oberstar amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 460, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, Amtrak is an essential part of our National 
Transportation System, providing 22 million

[[Page H7077]]

inner-city passenger trips per year with over 500 destinations in 45 
States. Last year the Congress and the administration agreed that 
Amtrak must reduce its reliance on Federal funding.
  The budget resolution and the authorization directed Amtrak to 
operate without Federal funding support by the year 2002. However, as 
you are aware, the funding recommendations in this bill are below the 
authorization levels that is in the budget resolution and the level 
Amtrak says it needs to stay on the path to operating self-sufficiency.
  Between 1995 and 1997, Amtrak received $1.2 billion less than their 
proposed transition plan called for. Unfortunately, next year's capital 
funding level is again drastically cut and inadequate to sustain 
Amtrak's capital expenditures.
  To facilitate Amtrak's transition off Federal assistance I have 
introduced H.R. 2789, creating a dedicated funding source for Amtrak 
which would allow it to make the necessary capital infrastructure 
investments during this period of transition.
  H.R. 2789 does not create a new tax, does not increase the deficit, 
and does not cut any other programs. With an estimated $4 billion 
needed for capital improvements, H.R. 2789 will allow Amtrak to improve 
its rolling stock, upgrade its maintenance facilities and prevent the 
deterioration of track and signal equipment. These improvements will 
cut Amtrak's cost to customers, to consumers, reduce air pollution, 
fuel consumption, highway congestion, and urban parking problems.
  We can make Amtrak self-sufficient, but only if we adhere to our 
budget plan transitioning Amtrak off Federal assistance and only if we 
create a temporary capital funding source for investment.
  On a final note, Mr. Chairman, the Senate recently passed a sense of 
the Senate resolution in support of this proposal. I bring it up here 
tonight on the floor of this House because in this transportation bill 
the capital funding for Amtrak is so significantly cut that Amtrak will 
be unable to make the transition to self-sufficiency.
  If working cooperatively with the appropriation in this bill this 
Congress can pass the Amtrak capital fund, then we can, over years, 
enable Amtrak to become completely independent of Federal funding and 
be a first class rail service for passengers in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], for his concern and his interest in Amtrak and for his work with 
me on this important issue, and I understand perfectly the problems 
that he has faced in this appropriations bill. I only ask that he and 
my colleagues help me in this effort to develop a capital fund for 
Amtrak to enable it to achieve our goal and its goal of independence of 
Federal funding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman raises a very good point. As 
I said earlier when the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] asked me 
the question, unless there is a dedicated revenue source for Amtrak in 
the next several years, Amtrak will not make it.
  So the gentlewoman is exactly accurate. as we consider the proposal, 
though, we have to be careful not to take money from the mass transit 
account. The gentlewoman makes an excellent point.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
thank the gentleman. As we work through this transportation 
appropriations bill, I hope my colleagues will recognize that we have 
another piece of it to come forward.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his recognition of the essential need 
for a source of capital funding for Amtrak and for his support of the 
concept of a dedicated revenue stream and to also express my agreement 
with the gentlewoman from Connecticut when she talks about the 
necessity for adequate capital funding for Amtrak.
  This country went through a long period of time in which we left 
railroads, in which we were heavily subsidizing the highway system and 
leaving railroads to their own devices, and when we subsidize one form 
of transportation and not another, and it is not a level playing field, 
we end up with an imbalanced transportation system.
  What we need in this country is a balanced transportation system in 
which people who want to go from one city to another do not have a 
choice only between a car or an airplane. We need trains, we need 
airplanes, we need Amtrak, we need cars, we need all of it. We need 
rail freight efficiency, we need a good highway system, and we have 
been very imbalanced.
  I hope that we can, working together, develop an adequate capital 
funding stream for Amtrak, because otherwise it will deteriorate. It 
has already been deteriorating. The routes are fewer than they have 
been. Many cities are being cut off, and we ought to have an adequate 
passenger rail transportation system. It ought to have a dedicated 
capital funding stream. It ought to have a dedicated operating funding 
stream.
  I support the efforts of the chairman and of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, and I hope we will in the ensuing months pay more close 
attention to this than we have in the past, because a healthy rail 
transportation system both for freight and for people, a healthy 
AMTRAK, is essential to the efficient operation, the efficient 
operation of the economy of this country and the economic growth of 
this country, not to mention the well the well-being of its citizens.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, 
through page 26, line 24, be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], would that still give me the chance 
to offer an amendment at page 23?
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield, that is correct.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request to open up that 
portion of the bill?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 13, line 10, through page 26, line 24 
is as follows:

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or 
     purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental 
     facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including 
     initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; 
     engineering and service testing, including construction of 
     test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease 
     or grant; and construction and furnishing of quarters and 
     related accommodations for officers and employees of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration stationed at remote 
     localities where such accommodations are not available; and 
     the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds 
     available under this head; to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, $1,800,000,000, of which $1,583,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1999, and of which 
     $217,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
     navigation facilities.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $185,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and for noise 
     compatibility planning and programs as authorized under 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 
     of title 49, United States Code, and under other law 
     authorizing such obligations, $1,500,000,000, to be derived 
     from the

[[Page H7078]]

     Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall 
     be available for the planning or execution of programs the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $1,300,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1997 for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
     development, and noise compatibility planning and programs, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title 49, United States 
     Code.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of 
     funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in 
     accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation 
     Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary 
     in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities 
     under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     activities under this heading during fiscal year 1997.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION


                limitation on general operating expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration, operation, including 
     motor carrier safety program operations, and research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $510,981,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That $214,698,000 
     of the amount provided herein shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1999.

                     Highway-Related Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of title 23, United States Code, section 402 
     administered by the Federal Highway Administration, to remain 
     available until expended, $2,049,000 to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $17,550,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 1997.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursements for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $19,800,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund


                      (limitation on direct loans)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds under this head are available for 
     obligations for right-of-way acquisition during fiscal year 
     1997.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 31102, $74,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $77,425,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety 
     Grants''.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, $81,895,000, of 
     which $45,646,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1999: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 
     49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement 
     pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the 
     three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
     resistance) already in effect.

                        Operations and Research


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 23 
     U.S.C. 403 and section 2006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, $50,377,000, of 
     which $27,066,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1999.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 153, 402, 408, and 410, chapter 303 
     of title 49, United States Code, and section 209 of Public 
     Law 95-599, as amended, to remain available until expended, 
     $167,100,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding subsection 2009(b) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     planning or execution of programs the total obligations for 
     which, in fiscal year 1997, are in excess of $167,100,000 for 
     programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 410, as amended, 
     of which $127,700,000 shall be for ``State and community 
     highway safety grants'', $2,400,000 shall be for the 
     ``National Driver Register'', $11,000,000 shall be for 
     highway safety grants as authorized by section 1003(a)(7) of 
     Public Law 102-240, and $26,000,000 shall be for section 410 
     ``Alcohol-impaired driving counter-measures programs'': 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used for 
     construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for 
     office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $5,268,000 of the funds made available for section 402 may be 
     available for administering ``State and community highway 
     safety grants'': Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $150,000 of the funds made available for section 402 may be 
     available for administering the highway safety grants 
     authorized by section 1003(a)(7) of Public Law 102-240: 
     Provided further, That the unobligated balances of the 
     appropriation ``Highway-Related Safety Grants'' shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this ``Highway Traffic Safety 
     Grants'' appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $500,000 of the funds made available for section 410 
     ``Alcohol-impaired driving counter-measures programs'' shall 
     be available for technical assistance to the States.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $16,469,000, of 
     which $1,523,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of a program making 
     commitments to guarantee new loans under the Emergency Rail 
     Services Act of 1970, as amended, and no new commitments to 
     guarantee loans under section 211(a) or 211(h) of the 
     Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, as amended, shall 
     be made: Provided further, That, as part of the Washington 
     Union Station transaction in which the Secretary assumed the 
     first deed of trust on the property and, where the Union 
     Station Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is 
     obligated to make payments on such deed of trust on the 
     Secretary's behalf, including payments on and after September 
     30, 1988, the Secretary is authorized to receive such 
     payments directly from the Union Station Redevelopment 
     Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged for the 
     first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
     trust with those funds: Provided further, That such 
     additional sums as may be necessary for payment on the first 
     deed of trust may be advanced by the Administrator from 
     unobligated balances available to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, to be reimbursed from payments received from 
     the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.

                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, $51,407,000, of which $2,476,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other law, funds appropriated under this 
     heading are available for the reimbursement of out-of-state 
     travel and per diem costs incurred by employees of state 
     governments directly supporting the Federal railroad safety 
     program, including regulatory development and compliance-
     related activities.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $20,341,000, to remain available until expended.

                High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities

       For the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 
     $80,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999, to 
     pursue public/private partnerships for high-speed rail 
     trainset and maintenance facility financing arrangements.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That no new loan guarantee commitments shall be 
     made during fiscal year 1997.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
     studies, corridor planning, development, demonstration, and 
     implementation, $19,757,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds under this head may be made 
     available for grants to States for high-speed rail corridor 
     design,

[[Page H7079]]

     feasibility studies, environmental analyses, and track and 
     signal improvements.

          Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For grants and payment of obligations incurred in carrying 
     out the provisions of the High-Speed Ground Transportation 
     program as defined in subsections 1036(c) and 1036(d)(1)(B) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991, including planning and environmental analyses, 
     $2,855,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to 
     remain available until expended.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $4,000,000 to be matched by the 
     State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar for dollar 
     basis and to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     as a condition of accepting such funds, the Providence and 
     Worcester (P&W) Railroad shall enter into an agreement with 
     the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, on a dollar for dollar basis, up to the first 
     $10,000,000 in damages resulting from the legal action 
     initiated by the P&W Railroad under its existing contracts 
     with Amtrak relating to the provision of vertical clearances 
     between Davisville and Central Falls in excess of those 
     required for present freight operations.

                     Direct Loan Financing Program

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $58,680,000, 
     for direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000 consistent with 
     the purposes of section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization 
     and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 825) as in 
     effect on September 30, 1988, to the Alameda Corridor 
     Transportation Authority to continue the Alameda Corridor 
     Project, including replacement of at-grade rail lines with a 
     below-grade corridor and widening of the adjacent major 
     highway: Provided, That loans not to exceed the following 
     amounts shall be made on or after the first day of the fiscal 
     year indicated:

Fiscal year 1997...........................................$140,000,000
Fiscal year 1998...........................................$140,000,000
Fiscal year 1999...........................................$120,000,000

     Provided further, That any loan authorized under this section 
     shall be structured with a maximum 30-year repayment after 
     completion of construction at an annual interest rate of not 
     to exceed the 30-year United States Treasury rate and on such 
     terms and conditions as deemed appropriate by the Secretary 
     of Transportation: Provided further, That specific provisions 
     of section 505(a)(b) and (d) shall not apply: Provided 
     further, That the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority 
     shall be deemed to be a financially responsible person for 
     purposes of section 505 of the Act.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104, $462,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $342,000,000 shall be available for 
     operating losses and for mandatory passenger rail service 
     payments, and $120,000,000 shall be for capital improvements: 
     Provided, That funding under this head for capital 
     improvements shall not be made available before July 1, 1997: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds herein appropriated 
     shall be used for lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles or for the hire of vehicle operators for any officer 
     or employee, other than the president of the Corporation, 
     excluding the lease of passenger motor vehicles for those 
     officers or employees while in official travel status.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $41,367,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 
     5310(a)(2), 5311, and 5336, to remain available until 
     expended, $460,000,000: Provided, That no more than 
     $2,052,925,000 of budget authority shall be available for 
     these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this head for formula grants, no more than $400,000,000 
     may be used for operating assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5336(d): 
     Provided further, That the limitation on operating assistance 
     provided under this heading shall, for urbanized areas of 
     less than 200,000 in population, be no less than seventy-five 
     percent of the amount of operating assistance such areas are 
     eligible to receive under Public Law 103-331; Provided 
     further, That in the distribution of the limitation provided 
     under this heading to urbanized areas that had a population 
     under the 1990 census of 1,000,000 or more, the Secretary 
     shall direct each such area to give priority consideration to 
     the impact or reductions in operating assistance on smaller 
     transit authorities operating within the area and to consider 
     the needs and resources of such transit authorities when the 
     limitation is distributed among all transit authorities 
     operating in the area.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf: On page 27, line 4, strike 
     ``$460,000,000'' and insert ``$490,000,000''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment to ensure that 
the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund is used solely for 
capital and capital-related expenses in the transit formula of the 
grant program.
  It simply increases the general fund in the transit formula program 
while decreasing the trust fund share of the program each by $30 
million. The amendment does not change the amount available for transit 
operating nor does it change the outlays scored against the bill. The 
intent of the amendment simply corrects an inadvertent estimating error 
by the Federal Transit Administration, and it has the support of the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, and I ask that the amendment be 
adopted.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to inspect the 
amendment. It is a technical amendment, and we have no objection. We 
believe it should be adopted, and we urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner] may offer his amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. FILNER: On page 23, line 16, 
     insert the following after the word ``made'': ``in excess of 
     $490,000''.

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment that 
is absolutely critical to the economic development of the city of San 
Diego and its surrounding communities. In effect, what my amendment 
does is add $490,000 to the section 511 railroad loan guarantee program 
in order to leverage approximately $10 million in private sector loan 
guarantees that are necessary to reestablish the San Diego and Arizona 
Eastern Railroad. I repeat this is a loan guarantee which leverages 20 
times that amount of private sector funding.
  Now, the lack of a direct rail link to the East is hampering the real 
growth potential of the San Diego economy. Currently, San Diego's few 
commercial rail shipments must first make a several hundred mile 
detour.

                              {time}  2245

  Ships which would otherwise use the port of San Diego are therefore 
forced to go elsewhere in search of faster rail routes to inland 
markets. As a result, our communities lost out on business 
opportunities, and our port suffers from serious underuse. 
Reestablishment of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroad is on the 
top of everyone's priority list in San Diego and enjoys wide bipartisan 
support. The city of San Diego, the county board of supervisors, the 
San Diego Association of Governments, the Port of San Diego, the 
Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and the San Diego Economic 
Development Corporation, all of whom's leadership comes from the other 
side of the aisle, I might point out, all of these organizations agree 
that reestablishing this rail link is the area's highest priority for 
economic development.
  Many of our Nation's regional and shortline railroads, like the San 
Diego & Arizona Eastern, find it difficult to obtain private financing 
for railline improvements because of short-term and high interest 
rates. Government assistance in the form of loan guarantees often 
becomes the only viable means to rehabilitate these vital links to our 
transportation infrastructure.
  I believe that the section 511 program, because it is not a grant 
program, because it is not even a loan program but a loan guarantee to 
leverage private sector loans, is precisely the type of public-private 
partnership this Congress ought to encourage.
  Last year the chairman of the transportation appropriations 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.

[[Page H7080]]

Wolf] joined me and several of my colleagues in a colloquy in support 
of this very program.
  If the gentleman will remember, in that colloquy that we had 1 year 
ago he stated that, and I quote:

       I concur that these loan guarantees have proven to be 
     reliable and can be a cost-effective and wise use of Federal 
     transportation dollars.

  I am going to quote the gentleman:

       I can assure you that I am sensitive to the needs of our 
     regional shortline railroads, and I will certainly consider 
     funding the 511 guarantee program, if it is brought before a 
     House-Senate conference.

  Unfortunately, this important program did not receive any funding in 
1996. And although a bipartisan group of Members joined me in writing 
to the Subcommittee on Transportation urging that funds be appropriated 
for this program, it is not proposed for funding in 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, the economy of San Diego cannot wait for another year. 
Because the appropriation subcommittee has not recommended funding for 
this section 511 program, I offer this amendment to directly fund it. I 
do so with the knowledge that San Diego interests will apply for a 
loan, private interests will apply for a loan to reestablish this 
railroad. I have the support of the Regional Railroads of America in 
this effort. Further, it is our understanding that this request is 
within the necessary budget authority and outlays.
  What I am addressing here, Mr. Chairman, is the absolute critical 
importance of the rehabilitation of this railroad to our community. It 
is critically important that we fund this line. We can get this train 
up and running with a modest $490,000 investment, a $490,000 loan 
guarantee which, as I said before, leverages 20 times that amount in 
private sector loans.
  I hope the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee will remain 
consistent to his view stated last year that these loan guarantees are 
a reliable, cost-effective and wise use of our Federal transportation 
dollars.
  I hope that my colleagues can support this investment in economic 
growth in southern California.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I tell 
the gentleman, we did look at it. We later found out that 90 percent of 
this is in Congressman Hunter's district.
  Second, we looked into the whole issue. And one of the reasons for 
opposing it is that it provides funding for loan guarantees. However, 
there is not appropriation made to administer the program. It is a 
technical law which may violate the Credit Reform Act.
  Third, there is the hope that the funds would be used for a local 
project in San Diego, when the project does not have local consensus, 
because I understand Mr. Hunter opposes it and I believe the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Packard, opposes it.
  Under the section 511 loan guarantee program, if railroads are unable 
to repay these loans, the Federal Government is responsible. If the 
railroad cannot pay for them, the Federal Government is responsible for 
paying for them. I do not favor placing the Federal Government at risk.
  Finally, although the loan guarantees are portrayed as inexpensive, 
Members should be aware that if the railroad defaults on a loan, the 
costs could be very, very high. So the area is divided. It is mainly in 
Mr. Hunter's district. We did look into it. It is a loan guarantee 
program. A default means that everybody in the country pays. And, 
therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I know this is a debatable issue. I just 
want to make sure that my colleagues understand, this program has been 
used before in the past. It has never, a loan has never not been repaid 
in this program. The authorization is in the generic act--90 percent of 
the line is not in Mr. Hunter's district. It is shared between our two 
districts and between two nations, in fact, Mexico and the United 
States. So with those corrections, I understand the gentleman's 
opposition.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, there has been a default. There has 
been one. Second, we know absolutely nothing at all about the railroad, 
absolutely, positively, categorically nothing.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows nothing about what?
  Mr. WOLF. About the railroad.
  Mr. FILNER. This goes into the generic program authorized by law and 
would have to be applied for for the loan guarantee and would not be 
given unless all the due diligence was done by the railroad 
administration.
  Mr. WOLF. But if we do not know the profitability, we do not know 
whether or not it could default. Therefore, if it defaults, as it 
happened one other time, everybody is obligated.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the project. I have discussed this 
at length with San Diego people. I think that it is a good project. The 
rail line, this San Diego & Arizona Eastern rail corridor at some point 
in the future, I hope, will be open. I simply feel that this is not the 
future, I hope, will be open. I simply feel that this is not the proper 
way to proceed with the funding for it.
  The opening of this railroad would benefit the San Diego region. It 
would provide a more direct and less costly route for freight shipment 
from all parts of the United States to the Port of San Diego. But I do 
believe that there are other ways to do it. Certainly we ought to 
pursue that.
  But the bill does not fund the loan guarantee program. There are no 
funds in the loan guarantee program. If this amendment passed, there 
are many projects that would apply for this loan guarantee funds. It 
would not just be the San Diego project. It would be many. And they 
would have to compete for those funds. It would be very limited and, 
thus, I think that there is certainly no assurance that these funds 
would go to the San Diego rail corridor.
  There is another factor I think that ought to be mentioned. That is 
that the reason that there was no funds put into this loan guarantee 
program was because there was simply not sufficient funds to fund all 
of the other programs that this subcommittee and the subcommittee that 
I serve on had to support. There are budget constraints and I think 
that is good, the reasons why that this whole program was not funded 
this year.
  I hope that we will find ways of funding this project, because I do 
support the innovative way of building through private moneys these 
kinds of projects. But I think that this is not the time to do it and 
not the way to do it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from San Diego 
and the northern part of our county's support for the project. We have 
searched, as you know, for 2 years now for other kinds, for the funding 
to get this started. You said this is not the way. I would ask my 
friend if there was any other way, let us do it. This is the only way, 
this is a cost-effective way. This leverages 20 times what the 
appropriation is. I cannot think of a better way to get private-sector 
funding into it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, there are two things, in response, if I 
can reclaim my time. First, is we have required offsets for every 
transfer of funds. This amendment is not accompanied by offsets. 
Second, I recognize that this is a good way to fund these kinds of 
projects. But we simply have not got funds in that program, and if we 
put these funds in that the gentleman is requesting in his amendment, 
there is no assurance that the San Diego project would be able to 
receive them.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that would then meet the objection of the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman in that there would be competition for these funds. We are 
assured that because of the amount of work that has been done on this 
line and the support from the local governments and the studies that 
have been made, that this would be a top priority.
  Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, it simply would mean that there was 
no assurance that San Diego would get these funds or have them 
accessible for a loan guarantee. Second, if it was

[[Page H7081]]

competitive and thus divided among many projects, it would help no 
project. There simply would not be enough.
  Mr. FILNER. I wish the gentleman would work with me to find the 
method to get this project going.
  Mr. PACKARD. I very reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for the nice presentation 
that he has made in support of this railroad, but let me tell my 
colleagues what this involves. This is a railroad that once existed 
between Imperial County, which is east of San Diego County some 100 
miles or so, almost to the Arizona border. It is a railroad that runs 
from San Diego into Mexico, travels a number of miles in Mexico, goes 
up some steep canyons and finally rereemerges in the United States in 
my district in what is known as East San Diego County and travels about 
70 miles through my district in San Diego County into Imperial Valley, 
almost to the Arizona border.
  This railroad was knocked out of commission many, many years ago. It 
has not been in operation for a number of years. There is an issue here 
that is a very important issue to everybody in the country, and that is 
border patrol. Let me just tell my colleagues what I am concerned 
about, Mr. Chairman.
  There were articles in the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the 
San Diego Union, the last headline of which said, Robbers Ride the 
Rails. And they were headline stories about the enormous number of 
robberies of American trains in New Mexico, for example, some 600 
robberies of Southern Pacific, in one year with an enormous criminal 
base, basically endangered by this train robbing operation. Those were 
trains that are in the United States. They do not even go into Mexico.
  We propose at a time when our border in southern California is 
totally out of control and totally in the hands of criminal aliens and 
there is a massive flow of cocaine coming across the border both in the 
urban areas and now in the suburban areas, and incidentally I have 60 
miles of farm families and ranch families who right now are being held 
prisoners in their homes by armies of illegal aliens and drug smugglers 
marching north through East San Diego County who have not concurred in 
the chamber of commerce recommendation, who have not concurred in the 
port authority's recommendation and who have real concerns.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there have been no studies whatsoever as to what 
effect this train is going to have on the smuggling of illegal aliens. 
And thousands of illegal aliens have been smuggled on the border trains 
in New Mexico. We have had no studies. On the prospective robberies, 
southern border trains have been robbed at the rate of some 600 
robberies per year, per line in New Mexico. We have had no studies on 
the effect on cocaine smuggling. If we have a border which is out of 
control, which we have right now in southern California, our primary 
goal now is to control the border.

  I like the chamber of commerce. I like the boosters. I am reminded 
that all of them pushed the port at San Isidro and the accelerated 
means of bringing in traffic from Mexico with goods. They all promised 
that the cocaine problem is going to go away but it did not go away. 
Because we did not accompany that port of entry with a right type of 
controls, we have a cocaine freeway right now through San Diego County. 
Nobody in the chamber of commerce or the port authority has come 
forward to say, we are sorry we made a mistake.
  I am going to offer my colleagues and, Mr. Chairman, a little while 
later an amendment that asks that, before we fund any such program, we 
do a study with respect to the effect it will have on exacerbating 
illegal immigration, exacerbating drug smuggling, narcotics smuggling 
and creating a base of railroad robberies such as the one that has 
existed for some time now in the area around the border between New 
Mexico and Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. From my calculations, I do 
have about 90 percent of this railroad in my district. I think we need 
to have this type of information before we blindly move ahead because 
we have a lot of governmental entities that like this project.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me say that I understand and recognize the efforts of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]. I understand the concerns of my 
colleagues also from San Diego, CA, representing a border district.
  I would note and would suggest to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter], that perhaps his idea concerning the kinds of restrictions and 
requirements on loan guarantees need to be applied not just in terms of 
border regions with respect to documentation or ideas about the numbers 
of robberies, the numbers of undocumented persons but indeed what, 
after all, we do when we provide for capitalization projects.

                              {time}  2300

  I would point out to this House that in last year's, in this 1996 
year of fiscal operations, we have in the current operations a $10 
million grant that was not included in the President's budget to the 
Alaska Railroad for capital improvements. We did not do that in the 
House. That was as a result of coming out of conference, but we voted 
for final passage of the legislation when it came back from conference. 
So we, in fact, have already approved a project much like this. This is 
not a first-impression move.
  In fact, what the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Filner] does, of course, is not even make a direct grant. Mr. 
Filner's amendment only provides loan guarantees.
  I think that it is a good amendment in that it helped provide a small 
amount of assistance in the form of those guarantees to regional 
railroads which need assistance for capital improvements, so I do not 
think that we should reject out of hand the efforts by our colleagues 
who want to provide this kind of funding. I think it is one way to look 
at ways in which we can be innovative in order to provide the funding 
that is necessary for good operations, for good businesses, and I would 
rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank my 
colleague from along the border with me, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter], for raising the concerns he has, and he has been the 
leader of this House in getting control of the border, and we have a 
lot to thank him for, and we have worked together to do that. I would 
not offer this amendment, Mr. Hunter, and he knows that, if I thought 
this would worsen that situation. I believe that the economic 
development on both sides of the border is the key for us getting 
control of that border, and this is a cooperative venture between two 
nations that would actually raise the quality of life for working 
people in my district, in the gentleman's district, in Mexico, and, in 
fact, in many communities around our region. This is what we should be 
doing.
  Yes, let us study the possible effects on the drug trade; yes, let us 
study the possible consequences of banditry, but let us not be scared 
off. I mean I see the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] standing 
beside the gentleman. He can tell us that if Americans were scared off 
in making this country economically beneficial by threats of banditry 
or by letting a few people scare us off from making economic gains, 
then we would not be the country we are today.
  That is what this railroad is all about. Let us make the economic 
development of this border area really work, and I look forward to 
working with the gentleman to do that. I did not quite get the 
amendment he thought about offering. If it is in conjunction with mine, 
let us do it. If it is in place of mine, I prefer that we try to get 
the funding in place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H7082]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 460, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
each amendment to the remainder of the bill, and any amendments 
thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, equally divided, with the exception 
of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] for 20 
minutes and the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Andrews] for 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of 
the bill through page 55, line 15, be considered as read, and printed 
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 55, line 15, is as 
follows:

                   University Transportation Centers

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

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses for transit planning and research as 
     authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5311, 5313, 5314, and 5315, to 
     remain available until expended, $85,500,000, of which 
     $39,500,000 shall be for activities under Metropolitan 
     Planning (49 U.S.C. 5303); $4,500,000 for activities under 
     Rural Transit Assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $8,250,000 
     for activities under State Planning and Research (49 U.S.C. 
     5313(b)); $22,000,000 for activities under National Planning 
     and Research (49 U.S.C. 5314); $8,250,000 for activities 
     under Transit Cooperative Research (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)); and 
     $3,000,000 for National Transit Institute (49 U.S.C. 5315).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(a), $1,920,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That $1,920,000,000 shall be paid from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to the Federal 
     Transit Administration's formula grants account.

                          Discretionary Grants


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $1,665,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 for 
     grants under the contract authority in 49 U.S.C. 5338(b): 
     Provided, That there shall be available for fixed guideway 
     modernization, $666,000,000; there shall be available for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities, $333,000,000; and, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, except for fixed guideway modernization 
     projects, $10,510,000 made available under Public Law 102-240 
     and Public Law 102-143 under ``Federal Transit 
     Administration, Discretionary Grants'' for projects specified 
     in those Acts or identified in reports accompanying those 
     Acts, not obligated by September 30, 1996; together with, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $744,000 funds 
     made available for the ``New Bedford and Fall River 
     Massachusetts commuter rail extension'' under Public Law 103-
     331; together with, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, $47,322,000 funds made available for the ``Chicago 
     Central Area Circulator Project'' in Public Law 103-122 and 
     Public Law 103-331, shall be made available for new fixed 
     guideway systems together with the $666,000,000 made 
     available for new fixed guideway systems in this Act, to be 
     available as follows:
       $66,820,000 for the Atlanta-North Springs project:
       $10,260,000 for the Baltimore-LRT Extension project;
       $40,181,000 for the Boston Piers-MOS-2 project;
       $5,500,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project;
       $25,000,000, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     for transit improvements in the Chicago downtown area;
       $3,000,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast-Northern Kentucky 
     rail line project;
       $10,000,000 for the DART North Central light rail extension 
     project;
       $12,500,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project;
       $1,000,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia light rail 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Denver Southwest Corridor project;
       $9,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County commuter rail 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Griffin light rail project;
       $40,590,000 for the Houston Regional Bus project;
       $15,300,000 for the Jacksonville ASE extension project;
       $1,500,000 for the Kansas City Southtown corridor project;
       $90,000,000 for the Los Angeles-MOS-3 project;
       $1,500,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego commuter rail 
     project;
       $27,000,000 for the MARC Commuter Rail Improvements 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Miami-North 27th Avenue project;
       $2,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail Plan;
       $10,000,000 for the New Jersey Urban Core/Hudson-Bergen LRT 
     project;
       $105,530,000 for the New Jersey Urban Core/Secaucus 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the New Jersey West Trenton commuter rail 
     project;
       $8,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the New Orleans Desire Streetcar project;
       $35,020,000 for the New York-Queens Connection project;
       $500,000 for the Northern Indiana commuter rail project;
       $5,000,000 for the Orange County transitway project;
       $2,000,000 for the Orlando Lynx light rail project;
       $90,000,000 for the Portland-Westside/Hillsboro Extension 
     project;
       $6,000,000 for the Sacramento LRT Extension project;
       $20,000,000 for the Salt Lake City-South LRT project, of 
     which not less than $10,000,000 shall be available only for 
     high-occupancy vehicle lane and corridor design costs;
       $20,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair Extension project;
       $35,000,000 for the San Francisco Area-BART airport 
     extension/San Jose Tasman West LRT projects;
       $3,000,000 for the San Diego-Mid-Coast Corridor project;
       $9,500,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano project;
       $375,000 for the Staten Island-Midtown Ferry service 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project; 
     and
       $2,500,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New 
     York.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(b) administered by the Federal Transit 
     Administration, $2,000,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 14 of Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operation and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, including the Great Lakes Pilotage functions 
     delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, $10,037,000, to 
     be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant 
     to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $23,929,000, of 
     which $574,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $7,101,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1999: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the 
     general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred 
     for training, for reports publication and dissemination.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (pipeline safety fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $30,988,000, of which $2,528,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 1999; and of which 
     $28,460,000 shall be derived

[[Page H7083]]

     from the Pipeline Safety Fund, of which $15,500,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That in 
     addition to amounts made available for the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, $1,000,000 shall be available for grants to States for 
     the development and establishment of one-call notification 
     systems and shall be derived from amounts previously 
     collected under section 7005 of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 
     5127(d) shall be made available for obligation by individuals 
     other than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $39,450,000: Provided, That none of the 
     funds under this heading shall be for the conduct of contract 
     audits.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $12,344,000: 
     Provided, That $3,000,000 in fees collected in fiscal year 
     1997 by the Surface Transportation Board pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 9701 shall be made available to this appropriation in 
     fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That any fees received in 
     excess of $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 shall remain 
     available until expended, but shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 1997.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $3,540,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902), 
     $42,407,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1997 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available (1) except as otherwise authorized by title VIII of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 
     7701, et seq., for expenses of primary and secondary 
     schooling for dependents of Federal Aviation Administration 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     costs for any given area not in excess of those of the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, 
     available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 
     for the education of such dependents, and (2) for 
     transportation of said dependents between schools serving the 
     area that they attend and their places of residence when the 
     Secretary, under such regulations as may be prescribed, 
     determines that such schools are not accessible by public 
     means of transportation on a regular basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred seven 
     political and Presidential appointees in the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided, That none of the personnel covered 
     by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 
     the Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. The Secretary of Transportation may enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     any unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, and any other entity in execution of the 
     Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense 
     Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance Act of 
     1992 and related legislation: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 1997 the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways by allocation in the ratio which sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highways that 
     are apportioned or allocated to each State for such fiscal 
     year bear to the total of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for Federal-aid highways that are apportioned or 
     allocated to all the States for such fiscal year.
       (b) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1996, 
     no State shall obligate more than 25 per centum of the amount 
     distributed to such State under subsection (a), and the total 
     of all State obligations during such period shall not exceed 
     12 per centum of the total amount distributed to all States 
     under such subsection.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent 
     lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid 
     highways that have been apportioned to a State;
       (2) after August 1, 1997, revise a distribution of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) if a State will not 
     obligate the amount distributed during that fiscal year and 
     redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 103(e)(4), 104, and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240; and
       (3) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a), title 23 U.S.C., the Federal 
     lands highway program, the intelligent transportation systems 
     program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 
     1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023, and 6024 of Public Law 
     102-240, and 49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317, and 5338: Provided, That 
     amounts made available under section 6005 of Public Law 102-
     240 shall be subject to the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     under the head ``Federal-Aid Highways'' in this Act.
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1996, 
     the aggregate amount of obligations under section 157 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for projects covered under 
     section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1978, section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981, 
     sections 131(b), 131(j), and 404 of Public Law 97-424, 
     sections 1061, 1103 through 1108, 4008, and 6023(b)(8) and 
     6023(b)(10) of Public Law 102-240, and for projects 
     authorized by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 100-17, shall 
     not exceed $277,431,840.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1997, 
     the aggregate amount which may be obligated by all States 
     shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the aggregate amount of funds 
     apportioned or allocated to all States--
       (1) under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-240, and
       (2) for highway assistance projects under section 103(e)(4) 
     of title 23, United States Code,
     which would not be obligated in fiscal year 1997 if the total 
     amount of the obligation limitation provided for such fiscal 
     year in this Act were utilized.
       (f) Paragraph (e) shall not apply to any State which on or 
     after August 1, 1997, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1997 reduced under 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       Sec. 311. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation under the discretionary grants 
     program.
       Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement

[[Page H7084]]

     regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety 
     fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa Barbara 
     Traffic Separation Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic 
     Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 315. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract or (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the government's liability or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     made available for planning and executing a passenger 
     manifest program by the Department of Transportation that 
     only applies to United States flag carriers.
       Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Discretionary grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 1999, shall be made available for other 
     projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 318. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49 U.S.C., that remain available for 
     expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the 
     most recent appropriation heading for any such section.
       Sec. 319. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 335 technical staff years under the 
     federally-funded  research  and  development  center  
     contract  between  the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during 
     fiscal year 1997.
       Sec. 321. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by 
     $10,000,000, which limits fiscal year 1997 TASC obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $114,812,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the transportation administrative service 
     center.
       Sec. 322. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses'' account, the 
     Federal Transit Administration's ``Transit Planning and 
     Research'' account, and to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's ``Railroad Safety'' account, except for 
     State rail safety inspectors participating in training 
     pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901, et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth 
     runway at the new Denver International Airport, Denver, 
     Colorado.
       Sec. 325. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, may be credited to the 
     Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing 
     the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such funds shall 
     not be subject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction: Provided further, 
     That in addition to amounts otherwise provided in this Act, 
     not to exceed $3,100,000 in expenses of the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics necessary to conduct activities 
     related to airline statistics may be incurred, but only to 
     the extent such expenses are offset by user fees charged for 
     those activities and credited as offsetting collections.
       Sec. 326. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated in this Act to ``Rental 
     payments'' for any expense authorized by that appropriation 
     in excess of the amounts provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     prior to any such transfer, notification shall be provided to 
     the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 327. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 328. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the 
     absence of express authorization by Congress, be used 
     directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
     advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or 
     written matter, or other device, intended or designed to 
     influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or 
     oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or 
     appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the 
     introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such 
     legislation or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the Department of 
     Transportation or related agencies funded in this Act from 
     communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any 
     Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, 
     requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem 
     necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
       Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Federal Transit Administration's field operations and 
     oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority in any location other than from the Washington, 
     D.C. metropolitan area.
       Sec. 330. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York 
     City, New York.
       Sec. 331. Not to exceed $850,000 of the funds provided in 
     this Act for the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for the necessary expenses of advisory committees.
       Sec. 332. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any 
     subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption 
     provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions 
     from the disclosure requirements of 49 CFR part 580 for any 
     class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 333. No funds other than those appropriated to the 
     Surface Transportation Board shall be used for conducting the 
     activities of the Board.
       Sec. 334. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to construct, or to pay the salaries or expenses of 
     Department of Transportation personnel who approve or 
     facilitate the construction of, a third track on the Metro-
     North Railroad Harlem Line in the vicinity of Bronxville, New 
     York, when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that a final 
     environmental impact statement has not been completed for 
     such construction project.
       Sec. 335. Section 5328(c)(1)(E) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Westside'' the first place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``and'' after ``101-584,''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and the locally preferred alternative for the 
     South/North Corridor Project''.
       Sec. 336. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds made available to Cleveland for the ``Cleveland 
     Dual Hub Corridor Project'' or ``Cleveland Dual Hub Rail 
     Project,'' $4,023,030 in funds made available in fiscal years 
     1991, 1992, and 1994, under Public Laws 101-516, 102-143, 
     102-240, 103-122, and accompanying reports, shall be made 
     available for the Berea Red Line Extension and the Euclid 
     Corridor Improvement projects.
       Sec. 337. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     made available under section 3035(kk) of Public Law 102-240 
     for fiscal year 1997 to the State of Michigan shall be for 
     the purchase of buses and bus-related equipment and 
     facilities.

[[Page H7085]]

       Sec. 338. In addition to amounts otherwise provided in this 
     Act, there is hereby appropriated $2,400,000 for activities 
     of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, to remain 
     available until expended.
       Sec. 339. Section 423 of H.R. 1361, as passed the House of 
     Representatives on May 9, 1995, is hereby enacted into law.

               TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     semitrailer units operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer 
     combination whose semitrailer unit is more than forty-eight 
     feet in length and truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer 
     combinations specified in section 31111(b)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, may not operate on United States Route 15 
     in Virginia between the Maryland border and the intersection 
     with United States Route 29.
       Sec. 402. Item 30 of the table contained in section 1107(b) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (105 Stat. 2050), relating to Mobile, Alabama, is 
     amended in the second column by inserting after ``Alabama'' 
     the following: ``and for feasibility studies, preliminary 
     engineering, and construction of a new bridge and approaches 
     over the Mobile River''.
       Sec. 403. Item 94 of the table contained in section 1107(b) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (105 Stat. 2052), relating to St. Thomas, Virgin 
     Islands, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``St. Thomas,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``the island'' the following: ``of 
     St. Thomas and improvements to the VIPA Molasses Dock 
     intermodal port facility on the island of St. Croix to make 
     the facility capable of handling multiple cargo tasks''.
       Sec. 404. The Secretary of Transportation is hereby 
     authorized to enter into an agreement modifying the agreement 
     entered into pursuant to section 336 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 
     (Public Law 103-331) and section 356 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
     (Public Law 104-50) to provide an additional line of credit 
     not to exceed $25,000,000, which may be used to replace 
     otherwise required contingency reserves; provided, however, 
     that the Secretary may only enter into such modification if 
     it is supported by the amount of the original appropriation 
     (provided by section 336 of Public Law 103-331). No 
     additional appropriation is made by this section. In 
     implementing this section, the Secretary may enter into an 
     agreement requiring an interest rate, on both the original 
     line of credit and the additional amount provided for herein, 
     higher than that currently in force and higher than that 
     specified in the original appropriation. An agreement entered 
     into pursuant to this section may not obligate the Secretary 
     to make any funds available until all remaining contingency 
     reserves are exhausted, and in no event shall any funds be 
     made available before October 1, 1998.
       Sec. 405. Public Law 100-202 is amended in the item 
     relating to ``Traffic Improvement Demonstration Project'' by 
     inserting after ``project'' the following: ``or upgrade 
     existing local roads''.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 53, after line 10, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 340 (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be expended by an entity 
     unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds the 
     entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-
     10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of American-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States, that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for his fairness, I want to thank him for his 
fairness in placing funds in here for a study that may help to 
reintroduce some rail service to northeast Ohio and western 
Pennsylvania. On behalf of all of those people I want to thank him, and 
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. I also want to 
congratulate him. This is the last time he will be handling this bill; 
he is retiring.
  Mr. Chairman, he has been a great Member. I want to thank him 
personally for all he has done to help my area and a lot of people in 
this country.
  I would also just like to say that my amendment is a Buy American 
amendment. It is simple and straightforward. It would provide a notice 
to those people who get funds in the bill wherever possible to buy 
American products, and it would limit using false labels on imported 
products and trying to deceive the procurement process.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. We accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] for the amendment. I think it is a good amendment.
  And let me also say I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman] on his retirement and thank him for his friendship and a 
good working relationship, and also for the staff.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I want to thank the both of the gentlemen again for 
that study.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. We, of course, have also reviewed the amendment. We in 
the minority are in agreement and urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for their kind remarks.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. GUTKNECHT: Page 55, after line 15, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 406. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1.9 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the earlier unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier we heard from people on both sides of the 
aisle, but we were particularly criticized a few weeks ago when this 
House adopted the conference committee report on the budget, and it was 
widely reported, and correctly so, that for the first time in 4 years 
we are going to allow the budget deficit to actually go up.
  I and a number of my colleagues were very frustrated to learn that, 
and as a result after the passage of that budget agreement many of us 
went back to try to decide what we could do to help the House recover 
this fumble because, as I have said on previous amendments that I have 
offered on appropriation bills, I think that the general public sent a 
very clear message in November 1994 that they wanted us to make the 
Federal Government live within its means and they wanted us to help 
balance their budget.
  But this year we are increasing spending by about $4.1 billion over

[[Page H7086]]

what we said we were going to spend just last year. I think that is a 
terrible mistake from a policy standpoint, and I think it makes it even 
more difficult for us to say that we are going to actually reduce 
spending in the outyears.
  In fact, what I said last night was, how in the world can we say in 
good conscience to our constituents that we cannot cut an additional 
$4.1 billion worth of spending this year and yet somehow miraculously 
in 3 years we are going to have the discipline to cut $47 billion worth 
of spending?
  I think it a mistake, and, as I say, as a result of that we came up 
with a very simple amendment that we are going to offer to every single 
appropriation bill from this point forward to simply trim 1.9 percent 
from each appropriation bill in discretionary domestic spending so that 
if all of those amendments were passed, it would at least get us back 
to the promise that we made just last year.
  But as I looked at this transportation appropriation bill, I must be 
honest that we find that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and his 
committee have done a very good job, and, as a matter of fact, their 
appropriation bill is $338 million less than the 602(b) allocations. 
And unfortunately, around this place, altogether too often no good deed 
goes unpunished, and so as we looked at this, essentially we came to 
the conclusion that this is one committee that has already met the 
challenge which we laid out in terms of trying to recover that $4.1 
billion.
  So as a result, Mr. Chairman, if I could engage in a brief colloquy 
with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], I think we can resolve 
this matter and move forward to the next order of business. I ask the 
gentleman:
  It is true that under this bill, H.R. 3675, the gentleman proposes to 
spend $338 million less than the budget authority allocated in the 
transportation subcommittee by the full committee?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Would it be the gentleman's intention to continue to 
try and save $338 million should this bill go forward into the 
conference committee with the Senate?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, it is my intention to see that the conference report 
reflects the priorities and funding levels of the House, and also I 
might say that if the Senate tries to put any highway demos in, we will 
make sure that they are not in, and I hope that the people of our body 
will help us to make sure they are not in, it, but there are no highway 
demonstration projects in this bill.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. The amendment that I am offering would save 
approximately $232 million and obviously a savings of $338 million is 
greater than 232. So in light of this fact, I commend the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the full 
committee for the work that they have done and foregoing the extra mile 
in terms of trying to preserve the American dream for our kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] is withdrawn.


                    amendment offered by mr. andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews: Page 55, after line 15, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 406. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Certain 
     Surface Transportation Projects.--None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to provide, or to pay the 
     salaries or expenses of Department of Transportation 
     personnel who provide, to a State more than $50,000 in 
     Federal assistance from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) for any surface transportation 
     project except when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
       At least 30 days before entering a contract or agreement 
     with a private business entity for the performance of work 
     usually performed by employees of a State under which the 
     State will obligate more than $50,000, the State has 
     conducted and submitted a cost-benefit analysis of the 
     project;
       (2) the cost-benefit analysis includes a detailed 
     description of--
       (A) the costs of labor;
       (B) the costs of employer-provided fringe benefits;
       (C) the costs of equipment or materials, whether supplied 
     by the State or private contractor;
       (D) the costs directly attributable to transferring the 
     work being performed by State employees to a private business 
     entity;
       (E) the costs of administering and inspecting the 
     contracted service; and

       (F) the costs of any anticipated unemployment compensation 
     or other benefits which are likely to be paid to State 
     employees who are displaced as a result of the contracted 
     services; (3) the cost-benefit analysis includes an analysis 
     of whether it is more cost effective to use employees of a 
     private business entity than to use State employees to 
     perform the work required;
       (4) the cost-benefit analysis is accompanied by an analysis 
     of the State's finances and personnel and an analysis of the 
     ability of the State to reassume the contracted service if 
     contracting of the service ceases to serve the public 
     interest;
       (5) in the case of a contract or agreement described in 
     paragraph (1) that will result in a decrease in the amount of 
     work assigned to State employees, the cost-benefit analysis 
     demonstrates that--
       (A) the contract or agreement will result in a substantial 
     cost savings to the State; and
       (B) the potential cost savings of contracting of services 
     are not outweighed by the public's interest in having a 
     particular function performed directly by the State;
       (6) at least 30 days before entering into a contract or 
     agreement described in paragraph (1), the State has submitted 
     a past performance history of the private business entity 
     contract or agreement, which includes--
       (A) work performed for the State under contracts and 
     agreements described in paragraph (1) in the 5-year period 
     ending on the 45th day before the date of entry into the 
     contract or agreement;
       (B) if no work was performed for the State under such 
     contracts and agreements during such 5-year period, then any 
     work performed for other States under contracts and 
     agreements described in paragraph (1) in such 5-year period;
       (C) with respect to each contract or agreement to which 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) applies, the amount of funds 
     originally committed by the State under the contract or 
     agreement and the amount of funds actually expended by the 
     State under the contract or agreement; and
       (D) with respect to each contract or agreement to which 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) applies, deadlines originally 
     established for all work performed under the contract or 
     agreement and the actual date or dates on which performance 
     of such work was completed;
       (7) at least 30 days before entering into a contract or 
     agreement described in paragraph (1), the State has submitted 
     a copy of any performance bond or any similar instrument that 
     ensures performance by the private business entity under the 
     contract or agreement or certifies the amount of such bond;
       (8) at least 30 days before entering into a contract or 
     agreement described in paragraph (1), the State has submitted 
     a political contribution history of the private business 
     entity with whom the State is entering into the contract or 
     agreement, which political contribution history lists all 
     political contributions the private business entity has made 
     to political parties and candidates for political office in 
     the 5-year period ending on the 45th day before the date of 
     entry into the contract or agreement; and
       (9) not later than 5 days after submission of the cost-
     benefit analysis and other documents under this section, the 
     public has been notified of the availability of the cost-
     benefit analysis and other documents for public inspection, 
     an the analysis and other documents have been made available 
     for inspection upon request.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation established by subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to any surface transportation project 
     when it is make known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend the funds that--
       (1) the project is a pilot project for a particular type of 
     work that has not previously been performed by the State and 
     is being undertaken to evaluate whether contracting for that 
     particular type of work can result in savings to the State; 
     or
       (2) the analysis of the State's finances and personnel 
     under subsection (a)(4) demonstrates that the State cannot 
     perform the work with existing or additional departmental 
     employees because the work would be of such an intermittent 
     nature as to be likely to cause regular periods of 
     unemployment for State employees.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the earlier unanimous-consent agreement, the 
proponent and the opponent each will control 10 minutes for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7087]]

  The purpose of this amendment is rather simple and straightforward, 
and it is that the taxpayers that we represent have a right to know how 
and where their money is being spent. This is a phenomenon that is 
happening across our country right now. State governments, in an 
attempt to save money, are laying off public employees by the score. 
People are losing their jobs, they are losing their careers, they are 
losing many of the things they depend on for their families. These are 
longtime, hard-working public employees.
  The justification that is offered time after time for this 
contracting out and for these employees losing their jobs is that it 
saves money.
  This amendment simply says to a local government using Federal 
taxpayer dollars in transportation projects, it says to that local 
government:

       If you want to lay off public employees, if you want to 
     take away the jobs of people who have been on the payroll for 
     a long time and done their job as they have been asked, then 
     you have to show us, you have to show the public, that the 
     savings of money that you assert are there are, in fact, 
     there.

  Here is the way it works:
  When a local government using Federal funds from the transportation 
trust funds decides to contract that work out, if the work is work that 
has been traditionally done by public employees, traditionally done by 
public employees, if they decide to contract the work out, this 
amendment requires the local government to go through a cost-benefit 
analysis. It requires a local government to weigh the costs and 
benefits of contracting the work out versus the costs and the benefits 
of keeping the work in-house and being done by public employees. The 
record of that analysis is then spread before the public, and that is 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what the amendment does not 
do. The amendment does not require that work that has been done by the 
private sector for years be changed. If, as in most States, the actual 
construction of these projects is done in the private sector and not by 
public employees, this amendment does not apply. It applies only to 
work traditionally done by public employees. It does not create a 
massive and new bureaucratic gauntlet for State governments to run.
  I would hope that every State and local government that is spending 
the hard-earned tax dollars of our constituents is already doing this. 
I hope they are already sitting down and saying what would option A 
cost to contract the work out versus what would option B cost to keep 
the work inside. This really simply requires then to disclose what I 
hope they are already doing.
  Finally, this amendment does not, does not, require that there be 
some new obligation placed upon States or that some new category of 
work be kept in house that would otherwise be contracted out. This is 
common sense. It even says, Mr. Chairman, that after the cost benefit 
analysis has been done, if the State still decides to contract the work 
out, there is nothing in this amendment that precludes them from doing 
so.

                              {time}  2315

  It protects the right and discretion of States and local governments. 
This, Mr. Chairman, is a truth-in-government amendment. It simply says 
if a local official, using Federal taxpayer dollars, if a State 
official using Federal taxpayer dollars, decides to lay people off the 
public payroll because they claim that it saves money, they have to 
show that it saves money. That is all. It is a truth-in-government 
amendment. I believe it deserves broad support, and I would ask that it 
receive that support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. Also, the American Consulting 
Engineers Council, the American Road and Transportation Builders 
Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the 
American Institute of Architects, The National Society of Professional 
Engineers, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Council of 
Federal Procurement of Architectural Engineering Services, the American 
Congress on Surveying and Mapping, the National Utility Contractors, 
they all urge a no.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members what AASHTO says. AAHSTO says the 
amendment is sweeping and would include everything from engineering and 
design and management, consultant contractors, and at the low threshold 
of $500,000 it would mean that most activities carried out by the State 
would not be effective.
  They said implementation of the amendment would require a whole array 
of procedures at the State and Federal level which would impose 
significant costs and delays in project development. It would make it 
impossible to utilize private sector resources. It is opposed by the 
State departments of New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, 
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Montana, and others.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if each of the associations that my friend from 
Virginia cites are opposed to the bill, it does not surprise me. 
Taxpayers are in favor of this bill, because all it really says is if 
you are really saving money, you ought to prove it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for his amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
because as I read it, it would simply replicate at the State level the 
procedure that is followed by the Federal Government to require cost 
comparisons before a contract could be given to private entities. The 
gentleman's amendment will ensure the prudent use of taxpayer moneys by 
requiring cost comparisons when in-house expertise is available. State 
governments frequently have trained competent public employees. Having 
State workers perform design and engineering work on highway projects 
will often save taxpayers' money because the job can be done quicker 
and cheaper.
  This amendment is a major step toward protecting the American 
taxpayer and ensures their tax dollars will be well spent. Too often 
private contractors are given sweetheart contracts in return for 
financial and political support. The best interests of the American 
people are not served. This practice is egregious when the result is 
the displacement or underutilization of public workers. I think this 
amendment sets politics aside and brings back into focus the interests 
of American taxpayers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the committee.
  FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews amendment for 
several reasons: First, it imposes an unfunded mandate on the States, 
like our own State of New Jersey. We already have enough unfunded 
mandates now.
  Second, it violates States rights. States should be able to make 
transportation decisions without any further Federal interference.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, it removes the flexibility that States currently 
enjoy to address their unique transportation needs. In our State our 
State has particular transportation needs because of our population 
density.
  Fourth, it swells State bureaucracies that many Governors, like our 
own State of New Jersey Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, were trying 
to control costs, so why would we need to swell the bureaucracy with 
more employees paid for by Federal dollars?
  Fifth, it invites lawsuits, totally unnecessary lawsuits.
  Sixth, it hurts minority and start-up small businesses who already 
have problems competing in a complex situation in terms of 
transportation projects.

  Seventh, it delays highway projects. In a State with as many problems 
as we have, we do not need any more delays.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it hurts the private sector, who is perfectly 
capable, who has a wonderful track record of designing and working on 
construction projects.

[[Page H7088]]

  For these reasons and many others, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey. The amendment is straightforward and 
requires that before Federal funds are used to contract out highway 
work, the locality must determine whether the benefits of contracting 
out, including the costs of the contract, the costs of terminating 
public employees, the costs of administering and supervising the 
contract, and the costs of the projected unemployment, outweigh the 
anticipated benefits.
  This should not be controversial. Small businesses and middle-class 
homeowners do this all the time. They want to get the best deal for 
their money. The taxpayers have a right to demand that their 
governments should treat their tax dollars with the same care and 
respect.
  I know that privatization is very popular these days. I know some of 
our colleagues like to point to situations in which privatization saved 
the government money. I know in some circles, putting people out of 
work simply because they committed the unpardonable sin of devoting 
their energies to serving their communities as public servants, is 
politically popular. That may be right, it may be wrong in a given 
case, but it is not too much to ask that before a State rushes forward 
and begins contracting out, it take the trouble to find out whether it 
would be getting a good deal.

  Some have complained we have no business telling the State 
governments to comparison shop. I disagree. This is not a question of 
unfunded mandates. What is at issue here is a fundamental question of 
accountability, accountability in the use of Federal tax dollars. 
Demanding accountability, making sure that contracting out really will 
save money, is not simply local politicians giving some goodies to the 
old boys' network. It is not an abuse of our authority. It is a 
fundamental exercise of our responsibility as legislators and as 
stewards of the taxpayers' funds.
  It does not matter whom we send this money through, it is our 
responsibility to ensure that the tax money we appropriate today is 
spent wisely. That is what accountability is all about. That is our 
first obligation, and that is why I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Andrews]. This amendment is not 
merely a limitation on funds for fiscal 1997, it requires States to 
perform six pages of new specific criteria, creates new requirements 
out of whole cloth that have never been present in the last 40 years of 
Federal highway programs. This provision virtually rewrites the highway 
bidding and contracting process, and it does so without any hearings or 
any debate as to whether such a revolutionary change should be adopted. 
This amendment has sparked broad-based opposition, including the States 
of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, 
Indiana, and Montana, the American Consulting Engineers Council, the 
American Road and Transportation Builders, and the Associated General 
Contractors.
  I am informed by the Federal Highway Administration and the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that, if 
adopted, this provision would nearly be impossible to implement for 
several reasons. The amendment requires the States to perform 
burdensome and costly cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis 
mandated by this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and bears 
little relationship to the meaningful analysis of costs and benefits.
  By tying its requirements to work that is usually performed by State 
employees, the amendment would create 50 separate rules for the 
Department of Transportation to administer. All States currently have 
different contracting practices. This amendment would freeze in place 
these different State practices.
  This amendment stacks the deck against private work in order to 
increase the State bureaucracies. It would hurt the private sector 
design and engineering firms in all of the 50 States. In sum, this 
provision is unworkable, would increase the burdens on the States, 
would lower quality and prevent States from building the best assets, 
so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member of the subcommittee, who has 
been an excellent mentor and friend on this.
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, oh, for heaven's sakes. I thought you all liked my 
cost-benefit analysis to be done on regulation. What in the world is 
wrong with us doing that when we are using Federal tax dollars at the 
State level? Nothing is wrong with that. It is called good management, 
good government. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us requiring it 
in this amendment. It needs to be conducted on preconstruction 
activities for federally funded highway projects prior to them being 
contracted out.
  What is wrong with that? Do the taxpayers not have a right to know 
that? I know all of you and all of us have agreed we need cost-benefit 
analysis on regulations. Let us do it when we are spending Federal 
dollars.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friend, which I think is misguided.
  The speakers on the other side of the aisle have referred to this as 
a cost-saver. I think it is more appropriately called a big government 
bill, very simply, because it adds an additional step to the 
contracting process on surface transportation projects. Any project 
above $50,000 will henceforth, if this amendment passes, have an 
additional step on it which will require more State workers and more 
salaries paid to State workers.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am 
Vice-Chair, this year has produced numerous studies that show that when 
government grows, the economy slows. That is a very simple concept.
  So my friends on the other side of the aisle who are interested in 
voting tonight for more big government, for more State spending, and 
more Federal spending, this is just their vote. I do not mean that, I 
do not say this to be smart. That is exactly what it is.
  What we have tried to do here in the last year and a half is to set 
the stage for smaller government, government that will permit the 
private sector to grow and to continue to provide opportunities in the 
free enterprise system for Americans to work and prosper. This 
amendment goes exactly in the opposite direction, and I urge all 
Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
would add unnecessary delays and added costs to almost every highway 
project across the country. More importantly, it would go very much 
against one of the leading recommendations of the most recent White 
House Conference on Small Business, which adopted as one of its main 
planks this statement: At the Federal, State, and local levels, laws, 
regulations, and policies should prohibit direct government-created 
competition in which government organizations perform commercial 
services. That hits right at the heart of this amendment. This 
amendment goes against that leading recommendation. It would be very 
harmful to small business, it would be very costly to the taxpayer, and 
I urge the defeat of this amendment.

[[Page H7089]]

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In urging my colleagues to vote with this amendment, I would like to 
deal with some of the misconceptions put forward about the amendment. 
People say they want smaller government. What we are doing here would 
not give us smaller government, if we oppose this amendment, it would 
give us dumber government, because government would be taking 
taxpayers' money and not necessarily getting the best deal for it.

                              {time}  2330

  We hear it is a violation of States' rights. Not so. This simply says 
the State needs to go through a justification process, but the decision 
as to what to do remains with the State. We hear this is unworkable. 
Any State that is spending tens or hundreds of millions of Federal 
taxpayer dollars without doing this is running their projects in an 
unworkable way.
  We hear that privatization has been a great success, and since my 
friends from New Jersey raised New Jersey, let me raise New Jersey. New 
Jersey, as I understand it, laid off the custodians at the State 
Capitol, the people who clean the State capitol building in the name of 
saving money. We have a problem with the Capitol building not being 
clean and we find out that the firm that was hired to do the work has 
hired illegal aliens to do the work, so I am not sure that that was a 
success.
  When our constituents, Mr. Chairman, go out and shop tonight for an 
air-conditioner or a TV set, they look for the best deal. We should do 
the same thing with their money. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I was in local government for 15 years. This 
is not true cost-benefit at all; this is a presumption on one side of 
the ledger sheet and creates a presumption that somehow the public 
sector delivers this better. It is an unfunded mandate; it is an 
economic study for every Federal highway program over $50,000.
  This amendment will delay projects, and when you have short 
construction seasons in some cases, it is going to kick it over, 
sometimes over a year's delay getting that project costed and that ends 
up delaying costs and I doubt that even goes into the cost-benefit 
analysis. This makes it very difficult to contract out and utilize the 
private sector resources available.
  The cost and the delays in undergoing these studies are deterrent to 
bidding these programs out and using private sector forces. This does 
not save money, it is anticompetitive, it ends up costing money with 
the delays, and it diverts dollars from pavement and bridges and it 
puts them into the bureaucracy and bureaucratic studies. I think 
despite its good intentions, this does not cut the mustard, it does not 
do the job. I urge its defeat.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 460, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter: Page 55, after line 15, 
     insert the following new title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. (a) Limitation on New Loan Guarantees for Certain 
     Railroad Projects.--None of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used for the cost of any new loan guarantee 
     commitment for any railroad project, when it is made known to 
     the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend 
     such funds that such railroad project is an international 
     railroad project of the United States and another country, or 
     a railroad project in the United States in the vicinity of 
     the United States border with another country.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that--
       (1) a comprehensive study has been conducted after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act regarding criminal activities 
     that have occurred on existing railroads of such type, 
     including--
       (A) the use of such railroads to facilitate the smuggling 
     of illegal aliens and illegal drugs into the United States, 
     and the impact of such smuggling on the total number of 
     illegal aliens, and the total amount of illegal drugs, 
     entering the United States; and
       (B) the commission of robberies against such railroads; and
       (2) a detailed report setting forth the results of such 
     study has been issued and made available to the public.

  Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] reserves a point 
of order.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of earlier today, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and a Member opposed will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, very simply, this amendment affects the 
proposal that the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] made on the 
border train, which lies mainly in my congressional district, and I 
brought up to my colleagues the problems that we presently have on the 
southern border of California with overwhelming out of control illegal 
immigration. It has become a cocaine highway in San Diego and Imperial 
Counties, and the problem with this train is that a border train, which 
does not even go into Mexico, in New Mexico was robbed 600 times last 
year, according to headline stories in the Boston Globe, the L.A. Times 
and the San Diego Union.
  So you have an issue of border control and what effect this border 
train that weaves in and out of Mexico will have on that situation. 
Will it become an illegal alien express? Will it be robbed? Will it 
build up a base of banditry along the southern border?
  What my amendment does very simply is it asks for a study. It says, 
we cannot fund any funds under this section until and unless a study is 
done that addresses the effect of existing border trains on illegal 
immigration, cocaine smuggling, and the prospects for banditry which 
have taken place in great numbers in New Mexico.
  So we need information on this proposal, and this amendment asks for 
a report that gives that information, and certainly I cannot see any 
proponents wanting to deny the House information that would let us make 
a reasoned judgment on this border train.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
mainly so that I could inquire of the author of the amendment, and we 
could be able to divide some time perhaps so that I could inquire. The 
language of the amendment is that none of the funds are made available 
in this act and my understanding is that there are no funds made 
available in this act for the cost of any new loan guarantee commitment 
for any railroad project, and when it is made known to the Federal 
official having the authority to obligate or expend such funds that 
such railroad project is an international railroad project of the 
United States and another country, or a railroad project in the United 
States in the vicinity of the United States border with another 
country, meaning Alaska, the State of Washington?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no, that does 
not mean Alaska, if the gentleman is asking.
  This is what I would hope that we would do under this, is to look at 
the existing situation. It is similar to San Diego's, and that is the 
border train that borders New Mexico that has been robbed 600 times in 
the last year. The study would under this amendment,

[[Page H7090]]

the intent of the author is that we would look at that situation.
  Second, with respect to the gentleman's statement that there is no 
funds under this act, this is attached to this section of the bill on 
the presumption that if the Filner amendment did pass, there would be 
funds available in the act?
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is the 
issue. I mean if the Filner amendment does not pass, then of course 
this kind of language is not necessary to do that.
  I know the gentleman wants to conduct a study, and I do not object to 
just doing a study, but I am afraid that the way the gentleman has 
crafted the amendment, we are going to do more than just a study. We 
may indeed be prohibiting any future use of any loan guarantee funds on 
behalf of any railroads just because they happen to be near a border, 
and I do not think that is fair, either. The gentleman represents a 
border, like I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. COLEMAN. No, Mr. Chairman, I think it is only a technical flaw 
and not subject to a point of order.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, for the proponents of 
this border train, the point of my amendment is that there are a lot of 
ramifications of this train that go far beyond simply linking up a 
couple of railheads with an existing port and expediting trade between 
nations. There are enormous problems along the southern California 
border. There are right now enormous problems among all of the southern 
border with enormous illegal immigration and all of the ramifications 
that come about as a result of that situation.
  This amendment has asked for a study. It should not be mission 
impossible to get a study. Now, if the gentleman says, well, no monies 
can be spent until there is a study, well, that is easily taken care of 
by simply producing a study, and I think that INS, at least the people 
that I have talked to, Customs, Border Patrol, have got facts coming 
out of their ears with results of what has happened to border trains in 
the last few months.
  So let us have this study, and then the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Filner] can move ahead in an informed manner, and I can move ahead 
in an informed manner, and all Members of the House will know what the 
facts are. Let us do the study.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Again, I think the problem of trying to draft legislation on the 
floor of the House is evident by the fact that what we have in this 
particular amendment says that this would include a railroad project in 
the United States, in the vicinity of the United States border with 
another country. That is not just Mexico. Where does everybody get the 
idea that the border is only Mexico in the United States?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It was an 
issue that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] raised with regard 
to drugs coming out of Mexico. Up to 75 percent of the marijuana is 
coming across the Mexico border. I think a study is a fair thing to do, 
so I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my dear colleague from San 
Diego, both of my colleagues from San Diego, and I am going to get in 
the middle of this family feud. I would ask every Member here and every 
Member who is watching on C-SPAN, do you hear what is going on? We are 
talking about trying to have commerce in the good things that we all 
talk about everything in this country. But here you have two colleagues 
that have districts side by side, and because of the uncontrolled 
situation along our frontiers, because not all American soil seems to 
be created equally.
  It does not appear to be by this Congress or other Congresses, 
because we are in a situation now to where a railroad is threatened 
because we do not have control of U.S. soil and we are not going to see 
the commerce and the prosperity that we should see in certain parts of 
this country, because America and the Federal Government has not taken 
care of a problem.
  I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter], does the gentleman know what I would like to see this study 
say? Not what is going to be the problems, but what can the greatest 
Nation in the history of the world that travels all around the world to 
defend and secure the national sovereignty of everybody else, what can 
we do to make the NAFTA train of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner] safe and prosperous? That is what our study should say.
  I just ask every one of my colleagues as they go back to the July 4 
recess, go back to your districts and think about the fact that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter] are going to go back to their neighborhoods and 
their neighborhood is not as secure and as safe from foreign intrusion 
as everyone else in this country should be and presume to be.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I wish all of us, 
the gentleman, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Bilbray, myself our colleagues, 
would be working together for the economic development of our region. 
This amendment does not help any. It does not even apply to the funds 
that my amendment addressed.
  The funds are not from this act. It is not a railroad project of the 
United States. I asked for loan guarantees for a private sector 
venture. The private sector is not going to invest $75 million in a 
railroad that has banditry problems, that has other problems.
  This is a private sector venture that will transform the economy of 
San Diego. They are going to make the studies. Let us trust the private 
sector on that side of the aisle. This is what the project is all 
about, opening the economy, opening the port of San Diego. The private 
sector will make those studies. They are not going to invest that money 
if it is unsafe.
  So I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] let us 
get serious, let us solve the economic problems of San Diego and not 
just demagogue on this issue of immigration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just close, if I might, and let me 
say that I think in terms of dealing with the issue of undocumented 
persons in America, the issue of dealing with the robberies, the crime 
that occurs, whether it be from undocumented persons who are foreign 
nationals or whether it be from legal immigrants or whether it be from 
United States citizens, those kinds of issues do need to be addressed 
by all of us in the area of law enforcement.
  Indeed, we have in this country a structure and facilities capable of 
handling many of the illegal activities that do occur. We know along 
the U.S. Mexico border, for example, I am proud to represent a district 
directly on that border with a citizenship of nearly 2 million people 
on both sides of that border, we have incidents of crime and the rest 
of it just like everywhere else in America. But I can tell you that I 
do not think it is important for us to suggest that we must somehow 
stop the kind of progress that has been referred to by all of my 
colleagues from California and what they intend to do.
  I am willing to study the issue, but if criminal or illegal 
activities have occurred, I know that Federal and State authorities 
have right now the ability to investigate all of those charges. If 
illegal activities are in play, we do not need to wait until a study is 
conducted. I mean after all, that is what the law enforcement officials 
that we fund, that your State funds, that your local communities fund, 
are there to do.

  So Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues defeat the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] in this instance.

[[Page H7091]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2345


              amendment offered by mr. collins of georgia

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia: Page 55, after 
     line 15, insert the following new title:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Transportation Safety Board to plan, 
     conduct, or enter into any contract for a study to determine 
     the feasibility of allowing individuals who are more than 60 
     years of age to pilot commercial aircraft.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the earlier unanimous-consent agreement, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the report accompanying the Department of 
Transportation Appropriations Act contains language directing the 
National Transportation Safety Board to review and issue a report on 
the Federal Aviation Administration's ``age 60 rule'' which requires 
pilots to retire upon reaching the age of 60.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
and myself prohibits funding of this study based upon several reasons.
  First, the NTSB is not the appropriate agency to undertake such a 
study. The chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board 
responded to an inquiry from the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
just yesterday. The National Transportation Safety Board letter stated 
that the basic scientific research required by such a study is 
currently beyond the mission and capability of the Safety Board. In 
addition, the letter stated that such a study would require about 1-\1/
2\ years of professional staff effort, and could replace or delay other 
safety studies already scheduled.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that taxpayer dollars should be 
targeted to the mission of the National Transportation Safety Board, 
which is investigating accidents and helping to prevent their 
reoccurrences, and not diverted for projects for which the agency is 
not suited.

  Second, the age 60 rule has been studied and restudied for decades by 
experts in the field. Congress ordered a major study in 1979. The 
National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Aging, and 
National Academy of Sciences undertook an exhaustive study and 
concluded that while there may be individuals capable of flying after 
age 60, there was no way to make such a determination without constant 
examinations, which are completely impractical.
  During the 1980's the issue was revisited in various forums without 
change, and in 1995 the Federal Aviation Administration, which has a 
medical component, undertook another extensive review, receiving 
thousands of comments. Not only did the agency conclude that a change 
in the retirement age was not warranted, but it applied the age 60 rule 
to commuter airlines which had been allowed to have pilots over the age 
of 60. I reiterate, this was just last year.
  I believe that requiring the National Transportation Safety Board to 
do yet another study is not only unwarranted, it is not a wise use of 
taxpayers' dollars, and certainly not a wise use of the National 
Transportation Safety Board's already strained resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will control 10 minutes in 
opposition.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  If this bill said to raise the age to 60 or 61, I would not be for 
it. All it says is the National Transportation Safety Board should look 
at the issue. Fifteen other countries do it. We know what has happened. 
There has been some political pressure by one group who has come in and 
said, ``Don't even look at it.'' We cannot put our head in the sand on 
this issue.
  You can argue it is age discrimination. Should we have an amendment 
that every Member of Congress over 60 ought to bail out of here? That 
every surgeon ought to bail out of here? That every dentist ought to 
bail out of here? That every whatever ought to bail out of here? The 
answer is no. All it is is a study to see, because it may be a major 
safety issue. Let me just read a couple of things.
  The NTSB at our hearing stated that there is data showing that flying 
skills, judgment, and seasoning in general do improve with experience. 
If you think back to the Sioux City accident, the United Airlines pilot 
who saved a lot of lives was able to avert a tragic accident at the 
last minute. That pilot was 59 years old and had to retire the 
following year. Another example that comes to mind is United Airlines 
811 where the cargo door blew out, causing both engines on the left 
side of the plane to fail and placed large holes in the floor and the 
wall. The pilot, age 59, brought the plane to a safe landing in 
Honolulu and the NTSB cited his skill as the finest piloting job ever 
done under these circumstances.
  In comparison, there are some vivid examples of young pilots who lack 
the seasoning and the skills to recognize the seriousness of conditions 
they are flying in and have caused tragic accidents.
  Let me give an example. A recent accident is the American Eagle 
accident near Morrisville, NC that occurred because a young pilot, age 
29, misinterpreted an engine-out light and lost his orientation, 
resulting in a perfectly good aircraft being flown into the ground. 
Another example is when a Henson Airlines pilot, using an incorrect 
navigation aid, flew the aircraft into a mountain near Grotto, VA. In 
this case the copilot was 26 years old, even younger and less 
experienced than the pilot.
  I final example is a 1983 Air Illinois flight where a 32-year-old 
pilot took off at night, lost electrical power, and instead of turning 
the aircraft around for an emergency landing, he continued to fly the 
aircraft and he crashed it.
  I do not say that the age out to be raised. I am not sure. If there 
were a vote today to raise the age, I would oppose it. But everything 
that we could do in this bill to make the airlines safer, we have done. 
Safety has been the number one priority. We put more money in this bill 
than the FAA even asked us for for safety. This side of the aisle and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] can be proud, this is a safety 
bill. This may be a safety issue. When you walk in that aircraft, you 
may like to see a little gray on that pilot's hair.
  If you vote for this amendment to knock this out, then maybe you 
ought to support an amendment that every Member of Congress over 60 
ought to bail out and your dentist ought to bail out and your surgeon 
ought to bail out.
  I do not know if it ought to be raised. I do not know. But what I do 
know is this was put in in 1959. Men are living longer since 1959. Some 
men work out and take care of themselves. Maybe we should take some 
pilots after they are 55 and maybe some that are 61. I do not know. But 
I want the NTSB to look at it, study it, come back and make a 
recommendation to the FAA. And whatever the FAA does, I will be happy 
with. But I cannot say we ought not even look at this.

  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I remind the gentleman, this is not the FAA. 
This is the NTSB.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to rise in support of the

[[Page H7092]]

amendment and note that if a Member of Congress has a heart attack or 
if a dentist has a heart attack, the public safety is not at risk. That 
is not the case in the occupation we are talking about here tonight.
  I would also say that it is important to understand that the National 
Transportation Safety Board itself does not believe that it is 
qualified to conduct the study that it is being asked to conduct. When 
we asked them what they felt about it, they responded as follows:

       It is likely that the proposed study will conclude that 
     significant new laboratory research on the effect of aging on 
     tasks that are critical to safe performance as an airline 
     pilot will be required. Basic safety research of this nature, 
     of course, is currently beyond the mission and capability of 
     the Safety Board.

  After that letter was sent, I understand that they sent another 
letter to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], because I know how 
things work. When the subcommittee chairman says something, they 
respond. In the subsequent letter which the agency sent to the 
gentleman from Virginia, they indicated that they would conduct the 
study if they were asked to do so and if it was requested. But, I will 
repeat, they indicated that in their judgment such a study, while they 
would do it if told to by the Congress, is beyond the mission and the 
capability of the Safety Board.
  So it seems to me that maybe this study ought to be conducted, but it 
certainly should not be conducted by an agency that itself believes it 
does not have the capacity to do it. I would urge that the gentleman's 
amendment be adopted.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  There was no pressure. I said to Mr. Hall, ``You do the right thing, 
whatever the right thing is.''
  Second, I do not have the confidence in the FAA to do this study and 
I wanted the National Transportation Safety Board, which is above and 
beyond the pressure of politics and Cabinet secretaries of whatever 
administration, to evaluate all the data--as I said, 15 other countries 
do it--and make a report back. I tell the gentleman it is the Safety 
Board that would make the report back to the FAA and the FAA would do 
whatever.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] and the ranking member of 
the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  I seriously doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Government needs 
another study. But if one is needed, then we should let the groups and 
the companies which are for and against this fund these studies. In 
addition, we can hold hearings on this without requiring the taxpayers 
to fund any new studies.
  I know there are good and well-intentioned people on both sides of 
this issue, but this question has already been much studied since this 
rule was first imposed during the Eisenhower administration. As has 
been pointed out, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Hall 
recently wrote that this study, ``may replace or delay other safety 
studies scheduled for accomplishment during fiscal year 1997.''
  The Federal Aviation Administration, as a result of its studies and 
its one-level-of-safety initiative, concluded just this past December 
that the age 60 rule should not be changed and, moreover, the FAA has 
recently applied the age 60 rule to commuter pilots.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I urge its 
support.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for 
cosponsoring this amendment, for initiating it, in fact.
  Mr. Chairman, I was very interested and pleased to hear that the 
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee mentioned the Sioux City, 
IA crash. People walked away from that crash for a couple of reasons: 
The seat strengthening that was required on all aircraft, to 18 G 
forces, that kept those seats in place and saved 110 lives; and for the 
skill of that pilot in managing this aircraft when he lost all control 
surfaces. Capt. Al Haynes, who flew that aircraft, is very strongly in 
support of the age 60 rule. I do not think it was the intention of the 
chairman to imply that he was opposed to the age 60 rule, but it is 
very clear that Capt. Al Haynes supports the age 60 rule and wants it 
to remain in place.
  This issue has been studied to death. We do not need to waste more 
dollars and the precious resources of the National Transportation 
Safety Board on another study. In 1979 Congress directed NIH to study 
the age 60 rule. The Institute on Aging, the Institute of Medicine, the 
National Academy of Sciences conducted the research, prepared the 
report, completed it in 1981, and recommended keeping the age 60 rule 
and extending it to commuter pilots--1981. It took until this year, 
under the one-level-of-safety rule issued by the FAA, to extend that 
rule to commuter airlines and to standardize the age 60 rule for all of 
aviation.
  The Academy of Sciences, the FAA, and the Civil Aeromedical Institute 
have conducted extensive studies on this issue. They all have come to 
the same conclusion after thousands of comments, after extensive 
review, public hearings, extensive debate over the 37 years this rule 
has been in place. Every entry pilot knows that age 20 or whatever it 
is when that pilot enters that cockpit, that at age 60 they are going 
to have to retire. They live by it and they know it.

                                   0000

  This is a safety issue. Every entity that has studied it has come 
down on the side of retaining age 60 as a safety measure. Do not mess 
with something that is working, that is safe. Keep it in place.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
the hard work they have done on this bill. While I have the deepest 
respect for my friend from Georgia, I have to rise in opposition to his 
amendment.
  Clearly great controversy exists regarding the age 60 rule. 
Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a study to be done 
by the NTSB to provide us with some hard data. So far the data that 
exists leads me to believe that this rule is totally out of date. The 
FAA's latest study released in 1993 showed that accidents declined to 
their safest level at age 55 and remained at that level until the age 
of 63. Now, that study also showed that the highest risk age category 
was from 24 years old to 39 years old, and it stated and I quote:

       In all of our analyses, we saw no hint of an increase in 
     the accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as 
     they neared their 60th birthday.
       Further, accident data collected by the National 
     Transportation Safety Board confirms that inexperience, not 
     age, is the leading cause of aviation accidents.

  When we really need to know what caused an accident, we do not call 
the FAA. We call the NTSB. They have worldwide respect in their 
knowledge of what causes accidents. So it is only natural to ask the 
NTSB to make this kind of study and report to the FAA and look at it. 
So why does the FAA insist so stubbornly on retaining this rule?
  I think it is time to really fully examine the relationship between 
age and performance and explore alternatives to the age 60 rule. Our 
friends on the other side of the Atlantic are already moving in this 
direction. Additionally, foreign carriers are allowed to fly under less 
restrictive age rules through and into U.S. airspace in America. This 
is absurd. Vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. WOLF, has 3 minutes 
remaining and the right to close, and the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. 
Collins], has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to say to my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has done what he should have done 
with NTSB. He has agreed to their reprogramming requests. Let me tell 
all of my colleagues why this amendment is important. The safety 
studies are already in progress by NTSB. They are

[[Page H7093]]

not going to get any more money by doing this study. In progress, they 
have emergency evacuation of commercial aviation under aviation; under 
highways they have a child-passenger protection study; a study of 
passive grade-crossing study; effectiveness of school bus seat belt 
study; a fishing vessel safety study; evacuation damage prevention for 
pipeline safety; safety at passive grade crossings and rail safety.
  In addition to that, at the moment they have 24 ongoing major 
accident investigations in all modes of transportation; 8 of them are 
in aviation. We are not going to give them more resources, but we are 
going to ask them more or less let us do another study. That is the 
reason I think the gentleman from Georgia's amendment is appropriate at 
this point in time. If we want to have people do more studies, we are 
going to have to pay for it. Is that not what we all said when we talk 
about a balanced budget? I think the gentleman from Georgia's amendment 
is a good one and I recommend it to my colleagues.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make several points. There is nothing magic 
about the age 60. It is strictly an arbitrary age. We can pick 59, we 
can pick 50 or 70. It is arbitrary. People are living longer and more 
productive lives. All common carrier planes have to have at least two 
pilots. A heart attack will not cause the plane to go down and they 
also, most of them, have a flight engineer. No other profession 
requires the termination of their careers at age 60, not the railroad 
engineer, not a bus driver, not a truck driver, not a physician, a 
nurse. Age 60 is not consistent with the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act which states that ability, not age, should determine an 
individual's qualifications for getting and keeping a job.
  These pilots are willing to subject themselves to rigorous medical or 
physical tests in order to keep flying. That should be what determines 
whether they are qualified to fly or not is if they are physically 
capable of doing so. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the gentleman from 
Georgia's amendment. Let me tell Members why. I am not asking to let 
Storm Thurmond fly, but in my experience, I can name a dozen people 
that are flying in air shows right now at that age that are pulling 
minus 5 G's and positive 9 G's every day. And we go through a rigorous 
examination, an annual physical. They even check for drug and alcohol, 
for eye, for heart, for sonograms, and that picks out what it is. If my 
colleagues ask me, with my experience, what flying requires, if I am 
going to fly with a young pilot or an experienced pilot, I am going to 
take the experienced pilot because in the long run that is going to be 
safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe, and I know Members have good 
intentions on this amendment, that age 60 should limit someone. When we 
talk about it is a wasted study, when we are talking about taking 
someone's livelihood, that is not proportionate to the safety 
exercised. I believe that is wrong and I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to a Member who will be so 
convincing, the next Senator, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lighfoot].
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and I hope I can meet up to our chairman's expectations.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, based on a 
couple of reasons. First of all, my good friend from Minnesota said 
that we have studied this forever and we agree about 99 percent on what 
we need to do with the FAA. But the problem is, there is no data to 
study. We do not have any pilots in this country flying commercial 
airlines over the age of 60 because the law has prohibited it for 37 
years. So it is very difficult to study the performance of people over 
the age of 60 if you do not let them fly in the first place.
  So in order to reach some kind of a logical agreement, I agree with 
the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], the vote was tonight to raise 
the age limit. I think I would be opposed to it simply because we do 
not have the data available to do it. All that the chairman is asking 
us to do is to try to look at other countries that are allowing 
commercial airline pilots over the age of 60 to perform, to see how 
they meet the safety standards, to see how they stack up, to see what 
their accident rate is, and then perhaps the NTSB, working with FAA can 
make the proper decision.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins.]
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 460, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________