[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.
____________________