[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9118-S9149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to consideration of calendar order 504, H.R. 3675, the
transportation appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with
amendments; as follows:
(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in
italic.)
H.R. 3675
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 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] $53,376,000, 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.
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]
$4,158,000.
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] $25,900,000, 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] $25,900,000 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
[[Page S9119]]
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] $12,700,000 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] $132,500,000: 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] $17,192,000, 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] $2,331,350,000, 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] $393,100,000, of which
$20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund; of which [$205,600,000] $227,960,000 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] $19,040,000 shall be
available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation
capability, to remain available until September 30, 1999;
[$39,900,000] $46,200,000 shall be available for other
equipment, to remain available until September 30, 1999;
[$47,950,000] $52,900,000 shall be available for shore
facilities and aids to navigation facilities, to remain
available until September 30, 1999; and [$46,250,000]
$47,000,000 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]
$23,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Port Safety Development
For necessary expenses for debt retirement of the Port of
Portland, Oregon, $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Alteration of Bridges
For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, [$16,000,000] $10,000,000, 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] $19,550,000, 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.
Boat Safety
(aquatic resources trust fund)
For payment of necessary expenses incurred for recreational
boating safety assistance under Public Law 92-75, as amended,
[$35,000,000] $10,000,000, to be derived from the Boat Safety
Account and to remain available until expended.
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]
$4,899,957,000, of which [$1,642,500,000] $2,742,602,000
shall be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed [$30,000,000] $75,000,000 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] $2,082,355,000 [ 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
[[Page S9120]]
certificates, 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.
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] $1,788,700,000, of which
[$1,583,000,000] $1,571,700,000 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] $187,000,000, 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 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] $1,460,000,000 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.
Administrative Services Franchise Fund
There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund, to be
available without fiscal year limitation, for the costs of
capitalizing and operating such administrative services as
the FAA Administrator determines may be performed more
advantageously as centralized services, including accounting,
international training, payroll, travel, duplicating,
multimedia and information technology services: Provided,
That any inventories, equipment, and other assets pertaining
to the services to be provided by such fund, either on hand
or on order, less the related liabilities or unpaid
obligations, and any appropriations made prior to the current
year for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to
capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall
be paid in advance from funds available to the FAA and other
Federal agencies for which such centralized services are
performed, at rates which will return in full all expenses of
operation, including accrued leave, depreciation of fund
plant and equipment, amortization of Automated Data
Processing (ADP) software and systems (either required or
donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable
operating reserve, as determined by the FAA Administrator:
Provided further, That such fund shall provide services on a
competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to
exceed four percent of the total annual income to such fund
may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 1997 and each
year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to be
used for the acquisition of capital equipment and for the
improvement and implementation of FAA financial management,
ADP, and support systems: Provided further, That no later
than thirty days after the end of each fiscal year, amounts
in excess of this reserve limitation shall be transferred to
miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury.
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]
$534,846,000 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] $234,840,000 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] $17,650,000,000 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 net
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] $79,000,000 for ``Motor
Carrier Safety Grants''.
State Infrastructure Banks
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
To carry out the State Infrastructure Bank Pilot Program
(Public Law 104-59, section 350), $250,000,000, to be derived
from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until
expended, to be distributed by the Secretary to more than 10
States: Provided, That these funds shall be used to advance
projects or programs under the terms and conditions of
section 350: Provided further, That any State that receives
such funds may deposit any portion of those funds into either
the highway or transit account of the State Infrastructure
Bank: Provided further, That the funds appropriated and
deposited into transit accounts authorized by section
350(b)(3) shall be drawn from the Mass Transit account of the
Highway Trust Fund and that funds appropriated and deposited
into highway accounts authorized by section 350(b)(2) shall
be drawn from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account): Provided further, That the Secretary shall
ensure that the Federal disbursements shall be at a rate
consistent with historic rates for the Federal-aid highways
program.
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
[[Page S9121]]
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and chapter 301
of title 49, United States Code, [$81,895,000] $80,000,000,
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]
$53,195,000, 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] $169,100,000, 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] $169,100,000 for programs authorized under 23
U.S.C. 402 and 410, as amended, of which [$127,700,000]
$129,700,000 shall be for ``State and community highway
safety grants'', $2,400,000 shall be for the ``National
Driver Register'', [$11,000,000] $12,000,000 shall be for
highway safety grants as authorized by section 1003(a)(7) of
Public Law 102-240, and [$26,000,000] $25,000,000 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] $5,468,000 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]
$16,739,000, 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] $20,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
For necessary expenses related to Northeast Corridor
improvements authorized by title VII of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended
(45 U.S.C. 851 et seq.) and 49 U.S.C. 24909, $200,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1999.
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] $26,525,000, 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, feasibility studies,
environmental analyses, and [track and signal] track, signal
and station 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.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the Alaska Railroad, $10,000,000 shall be for capital
rehabilitation and improvements benefiting its passenger
operations.
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] $10,000,000 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]
$16,000,000 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] $592,000,000, 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] $250,000,000 shall
be for capital improvements: Provided,
[[Page S9122]]
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] $42,147,000.
Formula Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307,
5310(a)(2), 5311, and 5336, to remain available until
expended, [$490,000,000] $218,335,000: Provided, That no more
than [$2,052,925,000] $2,149,185,000 of budget authority
shall be available for these purposes: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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 of 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.
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] $1,900,000,000 in
fiscal year 1997 for grants under the contract authority in
49 U.S.C. 5338(b): Provided, That notwithstanding any
provision of law, there shall be available for fixed guideway
modernization, [$666,000,000] $725,000,000; 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] $375,000,000; and,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, except for fixed
guideway modernization projects, [$10,510,000] $8,890,000
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] $800,000,000 made available for new
fixed guideway systems in this Act, to be available as
follows:
$6,390,000 for the Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry
project;
[$66,820,000] $62,000,000 for the Atlanta-North Springs
project;
[$10,260,000] $5,000,000 for the Baltimore-LRT Extension
project;
[$40,181,000] $30,000,000 for the Boston Piers-MOS-2
project;
$2,000,000 for the Burlington-Charlotte, Vermont commuter
rail project;
[$5,500,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail
project;]
[$25,000,000,] $20,000,000 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] $12,000,000 for the DART North Central light
rail extension project;
[$12,500,000] $18,000,000 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] $20,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County
commuter rail project;
[$2,000,000 for the Griffin light rail project;]
[$40,590,000] $24,000,000 for the Houston Regional Bus
project;
$7,400,000 for the Jackson, Mississippi Intermodal
Corridor;
[$15,300,000 for the Jacksonville ASE extension project;]
[$1,500,000] $3,600,000 for the Kansas City Southtown
corridor project;
$6,000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas Junction Bridge
project;
[$90,000,000] $55,000,000 for the Los Angeles-MOS-3
project;
[$1,500,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego commuter rail
project;]
[$27,000,000] $50,000,000 for the MARC Commuter Rail
Improvements project;
$5,000,000 for the Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor,
Florida project;
[$1,000,000 for the Miami-North 27th Avenue project;]
[$2,000,000] $6,400,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee Regional
Rail Plan;
$4,240,000 for the Morgantown, West Virginia Personal Rapid
Transit System;
$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] $10,000,000 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;]
$10,000,000 for the Oklahoma City, MAPS corridor transit
system;
[$5,000,000 for the Orange County transitway project;]
$2,000,000 for the Orlando Lynx light rail project;
$15,100,000 for the Pittsburgh Airport busway project;
$6,000,000 for the Portland South/North light rail transit
project;
[$90,000,000] $138,000,000 for the Portland-Westside/
Hillsboro Extension project;
$5,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
regional transit plan;
[$6,000,000] $7,000,000 for the Sacramento LRT Extension
project;
[$20,000,000] $58,000,000 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];
$30,000,000 for St. Louis Metrolink;
[$20,000,000] $45,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair
Extension project;
[$35,000,000] $20,000,000 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;]
$5,000,000 for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma light rail
project;
[$375,000 for the Staten Island-Midtown Ferry service
project;]
$2,000,000 for the Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project;
[and]
$8,000,000 for the Virginia Rail Express Richmond to
Washington commuter rail project; and
[$2,500,000] $5,000,000 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] $2,300,000,000, 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
[[Page S9123]]
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] $10,337,000, 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]
$27,675,000, 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] $31,278,000, 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] $28,750,000
shall be derived 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] $39,700,000: Provided, That
[none of the funds under this heading shall be for the
conduct of contract audits] of which $1,900,000 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,] program; the intelligent
transportation systems [program, and] program; 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; $5,000,000 for activities authorized by
section 140(b) of title 23, United States Code; $5,000,000
for activities authorized by section 1012(b) of Public Law
102-240; and $50,000,000 of the obligation limitation
established by this Act for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction: Provided, That $15,000,000 of such
undistributed obligation limitation shall be available for
administrative costs and allocation
[[Page S9124]]
to States under section 104(I) of title 23, United States
Code; $30,000,000 shall be available for allocation to States
authorized by section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240; and
$5,000,000 shall be available for administrative costs and
allocation to States under section 1302(d) of the Symms
National Recreational Trails Act of 1991: [Provided] Provided
further, 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).
(g) Increase in Administrative Takedown.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for fiscal year 1997 only, whenever an allocation is
made of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
expenditure on the Federal lands highways program, and
whenever an apportionment is made of the sums authorized to
be appropriated for expenditure on the surface transportation
program, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, the National Highway System, the
Interstate maintenance program, the Interstate reimbursement
program, the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation
program, and the donor State bonus program, the Secretary of
Transportation shall deduct a sum in such amount not to
exceed 4\3/4\ per centum of all sums to be authorized as the
Secretary may determine necessary for administering the
provisions of law to be financed from appropriations for the
Federal-Aid Highway Program and for carrying on the research
authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of section 307 of title
23, United States Code. In making such determination, the
Secretary shall take into account the unobligated balance of
any sums deducted for such purposes in prior years. The sum
so deducted shall remain available until expended.
(2) Effect.--Any deduction by the Secretary of
Transportation in accordance with this Act shall be deemed to
be a deduction under 23 U.S.C. Sec. 104(a).
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 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: Provided, That this provision shall not apply in
any case where the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration determines, in writing, that safety conditions
warrant obligation of such funds.
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] That
of the funds provided by section 6006(b) of Public Law 102-
240, not to exceed $3,100,000 may be incurred to conduct
activities related to airline statistics.
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
[[Page S9125]]
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] $1,050,000 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. 333. Section 24902 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Applicable Procedures.--No State or local building,
zoning, subdivision, or similar or related law, nor any other
State or local law from which a project would be exempt if
undertaken by the Federal Government or an agency thereof
within a Federal enclave wherein Federal jurisdiction is
exclusive, including without limitation with respect to all
such laws referenced herein above requirements for permits,
actions, approvals or filings, shall apply in connection with
the construction, ownership, use, operation, financing,
leasing, conveying, mortgaging or enforcing a mortgage of (i)
any improvement undertaken by or for the benefit of Amtrak as
part of, or in furtherance of, the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Project (including without limitation
maintenance, service, inspection or similar facilities
acquired, constructed or used for high speed trainsets) or
chapter 241, 243, or 247 of this title or (ii) any land (and
right, title or interest created with respect thereto) on
which such improvement is located and adjoining, surrounding
or any related land. These exemptions shall remain in effect
and be applicable with respect to such land and improvements
for the benefit of any mortgagee before, upon and after
coming into possession of such improvements or land, any
third party purchasers thereof in foreclosure (or through a
deed in lieu of foreclosure), and their respective successors
and assigns, in each case to the extent the land or
improvements are used, or held for use, for railroad purposes
or purposes accessory thereto. This subsection (m) shall not
apply to any improvement or related land unless Amtrak
receives a Federal operating subsidy in the fiscal year in
which Amtrak commits to or initiates such improvement.''
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. 335a. Section 3035(b) of Public Law 102-240 is hereby
amended by striking ``$515,000,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$555,000,000''.
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.]
[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. 338. Of the amounts made available under the Federal
Transit Administration's Discretionary Grants program for
Kauai, Hawaii, in Public Law 103-122 and Public Law 103-311,
$3,250,000 shall be transferred to and administered in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5307 and made available to Kauai,
Hawaii.
[Sec. 339. Section 423 of H.R. 1361, as passed the House of
Representatives on May 9, 1995, is hereby enacted into law.]
Sec. 339. Improvements identified as highest priority by
section 1069(t) of Public Law 102-240 and funded pursuant to
section 118(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code, shall not
be treated as an allocation for Interstate maintenance for
such fiscal year under section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United
States Code, and sections 1013(c), 1015(a)(1), and 1015(b)(1)
of Public Law 102-240: Provided, That any discretionary grant
made pursuant to Public Law 99-663 shall not be subject to
section 1015 of Public Law 102-240.
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.
Sec. 341. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
receipts, in amounts determined by the Secretary, collected
from users of fitness centers operated by or for the
Department of Transportation shall be available to support
the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
Sec. 342. 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.
Sec. 343. Funds provided in this Act for bonuses and cash
awards for employees of the Department of Transportation
shall be reduced by $513,604 which limits fiscal year 1997
obligation authority to no more than $25,448,300: Provided,
That this provision shall be applied to funds for Senior
Executive Service bonuses, merit pay, and other bonuses and
cash awards.
Sec. 344. Hereinafter, the National Passenger Railroad
Corporation shall be exempted from any State or local law
relating to the payment or delivery of abandoned or unclaimed
personal property to any government authority, including any
provision for the enforcement thereof, with respect to
passenger rail tickets for which no refund has been or may be
claimed, and such law shall not apply to funds held by Amtrak
as a result of the purchase of tickets after April 30, 1972
for which no refund has been claimed.
Sec. 345. Notwithstanding any other provision in law, of
the amounts made available under the Federal Aviation
Administration's operations account, the FAA shall provide
personnel at Dutch Harbor, Arkansas to provide real-time
weather and runway observation and other such functions to
help ensure the safety of aviation operations.
Sec. 346. Voluntary Separation Incentives for Employees.--
(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
in order to avoid or minimize the need for involuntary
separations due to a reduction in force, reorganization,
transfer of function, or other similar action, the Secretary
of Transportation may pay, or authorize the payment of,
voluntary separation incentive payments to employees of the
United States Coast Guard, Research and Special Programs
Administration, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Railroad Administration, and
employees of the Department in positions targeted for
reduction under the National Performance Review who separate
from Federal service voluntarily through September 30, 2000
(whether by retirement or resignation).
[[Page S9126]]
(b) Agency strategic plan.--The Secretary shall submit, for
review and approval, a strategic plan to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget prior to obligating any
resources for voluntary separation incentive payments allowed
under this Act.
(1) The plan shall--
(A) include the number and amounts of voluntary separation
incentive payments to be offered;
(B) specify how the voluntary separation incentives will
achieve downsizing goals;
(C) include a proposed time period for the payment of such
incentives; and
(D) include the positions and functions to be reduced or
eliminated identified by organizational unit, geographic
location or occupational category and grade level.
(2) A voluntary separation incentive payment under this
section may be paid to any eligible employee only to the
extent necessary to eliminate the positions and functions
identified by the strategic plan.
(c) Conditions and amount of payments.--In order to receive
a voluntary separation incentive payment, an employee must
separate from service with the Department (whether by
retirement or resignation) within the applicable period of
time specified in the agency plan. An employee's agreement to
separate with an incentive payment is binding upon the
employee and the Department, unless the employee and the
Department mutually agree otherwise.
(1) A voluntary separation incentive payment shall be paid
in a lump sum after the employee's separation and be equal to
the lesser of--
(A) an amount equal to the amount the employee would have
been entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5,
United States Code (without adjustment for any previous
payment made under such section), if the employee were
entitled to payment under such section; or
(B) if the employee separates during--
(i) fiscal year 1997, $25,000;
(ii) fiscal year 1998, $20,000;
(iii) fiscal year 1999, $15,000;
(iv) fiscal year 2000, $10,000;
(3) not be a basis for payment, and shall not be included
in the computation of any other type of benefit;
(4) not be taken into account in determining the amount of
any severance pay to which the employee may be entitled under
section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, based on any
other separation;
(5) be available from appropriations or funds available for
the payment of the basic pay of the employee.
(d) Effect of subsequent employment with the government.--
An employee who has received a voluntary separation incentive
payment under this section and accepts employment with, or
enters into a personal services contract with, any Federal
agency or instrumentality of the United States within 5 years
after the date of the separation on which the payment is
based shall be required to repay the entire amount of the
incentive payment to the Department.
(1) The repayment required under this subsection may be
waived only by the Secretary.
(e) Additional agency contributions to the retirement
fund.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments which it
is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, the Department
shall remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit
in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal
to 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee of the
Department covered by chapters 83 or 84 of title 5, United
States Code, to whom a voluntary separation incentive payment
has been made.
(2) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``final basic pay,'' with respect to an employee, means the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(f) Voluntary release program.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Department shall implement regulations
that shall permit its employees, who are not scheduled for
separation by RIF, to volunteer for RIF separation in place
of other employees who are scheduled for RIF separation until
September 30, 2000.
(g) Continuance of government share of health benefits
coverage.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department shall pay the Government share of the health
benefits coverage of any of its employees separated by RIF
for up to 18 months following the employee's separation from
Federal service, provided that the employee pays his
requisite share of such costs over the same 18 month period.
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. 403. The funds authorized to be appropriated for
highway-railroad grade crossing separations in Mineola, New
York, under the head ``Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Safety
Demonstration Project (Highway Trust Fund)'' in House Report
99-976 and section 302(l) of Public Law 99-591 are hereby
also authorized to be appropriated for other grade crossing
improvements in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New York and
shall be available in accordance with the terms of the
original authoriziaton in House Report 99-976.
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''.]
Sec. 406. The amount appropriated for the Lake Shore Drive
extension study, Whiting, Indiana, under the matter under the
heading ``surface transportation projects'' under the heading
``FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION'' in title I of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-331; 108 Stat.
2478), shall be made available to carry out the congestion
relief project for the construction of a 4-lane road and
overpass at Merrillville, Indiana, authorized by item 35 of
section 1104(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2030).
[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.
[Sec. 502. 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.]
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997''.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to present
the fiscal 1997 appropriations bill dealing with the Department of
Transportation and related agencies. The subcommittee allocation was
$11.95 billion in budget authority and $35.453 billion in outlays. This
allocation is $240 million lower in budget authority than the House's
allocation when they passed the bill on June 28.
[[Page S9127]]
In spite of this limitation, I am proud of this bill because it
addresses a number of concerns of not only the administration and my
colleagues but also the American people. I should point out, however,
that the bill is right at its allocation for both budget authority and
outlays. So any amendments that increased spending would have to be
offset with the necessary cuts to other parts of the bill.
This bill provides funding above that requested by the administration
and above that provided by the House in two areas of critical
importance: Safety and infrastructure development.
In the safety area, this bill provides the Federal Aviation
Administration funding for 250 additional air traffic controllers.
In the FAA's regulation and certification area, the bill provides for
more than 250 additional staff, including airworthiness inspectors,
airline operations inspectors, certification inspectors of engineers
and pilots, and manufacturing inspectors. However, in light of and in
response to the ValuJet crash, there is also funding for an additional
130 hazardous materials inspectors in the aviation area. These
inspectors were not originally requested by the administration, nor
were they funded in the House appropriations bill. And the bill also
provides 20 new inspectors for the Research and Special Programs
Administration, the lead agency within the Department of Transportation
regarding hazardous materials.
Global air transportation of hazardous materials has been growing at
a steady rate of approximately 7 percent per year. The majority of
these goods--60 percent--are transported on passenger-carrying
equipment. And, according to the FAA, the reported incidence in air
transportation associated with this type of cargo has increased 122
percent since 1991.
Although the FAA with its given resources monitors the compliance of
such carriers to the extent possible, it is estimated that almost 80
percent of the problems associated with this type of cargo originates
with shippers. I believe that the traveling public needs an acceptable
level of safety that can be achieved, not only with air carrier
inspections but also with targeted inspections of freight forwarders,
repair stations, and commercial shippers.
Therefore, this bill has funding of approximately $12 million above
the administration's request to address these safety problems. I
believe that this is important to point out in light of the TWA Flight
800 tragedy.
This bill fully funds the administration's request for operational
security of $71.9 million which funds approximately 780 security
personnel. This is a 6.6 percent increase over what was provided in
fiscal year 1996.
The bill also provides the full amount requested at research funding
for explosives and weapons detection. That is $27.3 million.
In addition to increasing a number of positions in the aviation
control, regulation, safety, and security areas, the bill provides an
airport improvement program grant funding level of $1.46 billion, $160
million above the House's level, and $110 million above the
administration's level.
I want to emphasize again, Mr. President, that this bill is still
under the House allocation.
In the Coast Guard area, the subcommittee has provided funding for
very critical maintenance activities, and is $14.3 million above the
House level. The House cut was appealed directly to me by the
Commandant of the Coast Guard who felt that a continued level was
necessary in maintenance in the aircraft and boat area, which severely
hamper the operational effectiveness of the Coast Guard in 1997.
I should also point out that the committee has not rescinded previous
years' funds for the vessel traffic service systems, known as the VTS,
and has provided the requested $6 million for these VTS systems in
1997. However, there is report language directing the Coast Guard to
tone down their ambitious plans and to develop a common platform and
common architecture for a vessel traffic system before proceeding in
the future.
In the highway area, the committee rejected the administration's
request that would have made some previously exempt highway programs
part of the overall obligation ceiling, and would have rescinded $300
million of previously authorized ISTEA highway projects. Despite the
budget constraints, there is an increase of $100 million over the House
level for the Federal aid highway program of $17.6 billion. And there
is $250 million for the State Infrastructure Bank Program, which was
not funded in the House bill.
In the rail area, the committee has increased funding for the House
bill by providing $200 million as requested for the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Program, and provides $130 million above the House mark for
the Amtrak Capital Program. We have also fully funded, as has the
House, the $80 million requested for high-speed transits. In the
transit area, we are slightly less than $100 million above the House in
the formula grants program, and are $235 million above the House in the
discretionary grants program. These funds are for rail modernization
projects, transit new starts, and bus and bus related projects.
So you can see, despite having a lower 602(b) allocation in budget
authority than the House, we have provided significant funding
increases for areas that I feel very strongly about; namely,
infrastructure improvement and safety related activities.
I believe that summarizes the bill. This year we received 770
separate requests from Senators, totaling $16.3 billion in earmarks and
specific requests. It is difficult to balance these varied and
sometimes conflicting needs, but I think this bill does a good job
performing that balancing act while providing needed funds for safety
improvement and infrastructure investments.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my colleague and former
chairman of the subcommittee, a man who has been very supportive and
helpful in crafting this bipartisan bill that we bring to the floor
today, Senator Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Hatfield, for his ever
constructive work and comments. This may be the last bill on
transportation that Senator Hatfield will manage. Long after his
actions as a Senator, as a leader in the Senate, and as someone whom we
all admire and respect, I hope we will continue our friendship and
contact, but I will say a little bit more about that in a couple
moments, if I may.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendments to
H.R. 3675, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal 1997. The
bill, as we know, was reported unanimously by the Appropriations
Committee on Thursday, July 18. It would be my hope we could get a
similarly unanimous vote for Senate passage of the bill.
Given the overall funding limitations that we face in this year's
appropriations process, I think the bill before us does an excellent
job in distributing scarce resources among the Nation's critical
transportation needs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this moment that Michael
Brennan, a legislative fellow from the Department of Transportation who
works with us, be granted privileges of the floor during the Senate
consideration of H.R. 3675 and the conference report that will
accompany this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this transportation bill comes before
the Senate and before the Congress at a very sensitive moment in our
discussions and deliberations here. The image of TWA Flight 800 is
fresh in our mind. We all now grieve with those who lost loved ones,
horrified at the shock that families, in some cases, lost two or three
members of the family. One man lost his wife and two children. We can
hardly comprehend the pain and the anguish that must go with something
like that.
What an odd coincidence that at the moment we are considering how
much money we spend on transportation, including safety in the air and
safety in other modes of transportation, we face a time when, again, we
wish that we could have done more, if it was possible, to prevent
something like that.
I think it is important as we consider what the investment is going
to be in transportation infrastructure in our society we not lose sight
of what took
[[Page S9128]]
place on that fateful day when TWA 800 went down. But we also cannot
easily forget the ValuJet crash, the problem with the Delta Air Lines
airplane as it was taking off and the mother and child were killed even
though the airplane never got into the air; the engine disintegrated
and tore into the fuselage.
We, unfortunately, can recall an accident in New Jersey and an
accident in Maryland on the rails when Amtrak, in the Maryland
instance, and, in New Jersey, the New Jersey Transit Co. lost people as
a result of a crash. We are all too familiar with what happens on our
highways each day in each State; that when we invest in transportation,
it is not simply another way to spend money; that it has a real life-
and-death effect on the way people move between work and home or
recreation and home or shopping and home; and that when we look at what
happens with our air quality--and everybody is concerned about what we
leave to future generations--we try to improve it the best way we can.
And the significant way to do that is through effective investments in
transportation.
For the knowledge of the body--and I think everyone is aware of it,
but I remind you even though it may be redundant--the United States,
among the most advanced nations in the world, spends the least as a
percentage of GDP on transportation infrastructure. When we look at the
per capita spending in the United States on transportation
infrastructure spending, we are the equivalent of some of the more
primitive or more backward nations of the world, those on the African
Continent, poor, poverty-stricken nations. I hope this year we
recognize this is one area in which we cannot afford to skimp.
This is an excellent bill considering the appropriations we had to
work with. It is a much more balanced approach than the House-passed
bill. The bill does an excellent job of addressing to the maximum
degree possible--and I emphasize the maximum degree possible--the
priorities of all Members as well as the priorities of the
administration. It is a testament to Chairman Hatfield's cooperative
effort that there is not even a hint of a veto overshadowing this bill.
The administration has seen that the chairman has worked almost magic
in terms of getting the appropriate balance with resources still too
little, in my view.
For the Federal Aviation Administration, the bill includes additional
funds requested by the administration to address the specific problems
associated with the transportation of hazardous materials. These
materials have been implicated as the possible cause of the recent
tragic ValuJet crash.
Moreover, as we await answers to the many questions surrounding the
tragedy on TWA flight 800, I think it is important to point out that
the bill before us fully funds the administration's requested increase
for civil aviation security.
For the Coast Guard, the bill comes close to fully funding the
Commandant's request for operations and acquisition. The Coast Guard
has implemented its own well-designed streamlining plan to reduce
costs, and I am pleased that they will not be required to endure
further reductions as part of this bill.
We depend on the Coast Guard to be ever ready and at their post in
the event of all kinds of national contingencies, whether it is for
emergency response to marine accidents and oilspills, search and
rescue, national security, or, as we have seen most recently, the
collection of evidence and debris from the TWA tragedy.
We depend on the Coast Guard to be ready to serve on a moment's
notice. I was in East Moriches, Long Island, a week ago Saturday
shortly after the crash occurred, and I couldn't have been more proud
of the Coast Guard, who was there as quickly as possible. I flew with
the helicopter pilot who was the first Coast Guard pilot on the scene.
He said when the sea was still burning, it looked like an inferno. And
I saw the loyalty, despite the terrible stress, and the commitment of
each of them, their having counseling and review of their own emotions,
because in each case, they see themselves and they see their own
families.
The Coast Guard is a fantastic branch of service, Mr. President.
Again, I do not want to leave out the NTSB and the FBI and the Navy and
the others who are working so diligently to try to provide the answers
that we hope will come soon. But a branch of service like the Coast
Guard often does not get the credit that it deserves as we give them
ever-more assignments. As one coastal State Senator, I assure you that
they have served us well over last year, over the many years in the
past.
Within the Federal Highway Administration, the Appropriations
Committee has been able to find sufficient resources to allow full
funding for prior-year highway projects. The bill before us provides an
overall increase in the obligation ceiling for highway formula funds.
Within the Federal Transit Administration, the bill before us
achieves a new high in the funding of transit discretionary capital
grants, and while the bill freezes operations assistance at the fiscal
1996 level, it provides an increase for transit formula capital
assistance.
I am especially pleased with the committee's recommendations for the
Federal Railroad Administration. The House-passed bill singled out
Amtrak for some truly destructive funding cuts. The bill before us
takes a much more balanced approach, and it provides full funding for
the President's request for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
and the special one-time appropriations for new high-speed train
assists.
The bill also provides an increase for Amtrak's capital account,
permitting them to invest in capital equipment, in trackage, in signs,
in electrification. The only way Amtrak can hope to become self-
sufficient is if it has adequate funds to invest in its deteriorating
capital plant. The bill before us makes a sizable investment toward
that goal.
While there are some questions raised about Amtrak and its service in
the highly populated Northeast Corridor, I remind our colleagues that
were it not for Amtrak, and if we want to provide the same level of
transportation facility to those who travel between Boston, New York,
and Washington, we need something like 10,000 DC-9's a year to pick up
that slack. Imagine, 10,000 extra airplane flights a year over our
skies with all the noise and all the congestion and everything else.
So, once again, the funds that we are investing are funds that have a
significant effect on the quality of life of our citizens.
Mr. President, it is with some pain that I must make note of the
fact--and I have made note of the fact--that this will be the last
appropriations bill that Senator Hatfield will manage in his capacity
as subcommittee chairman. In many ways, I hope it is the last and hope
that it will get to the President and get signed and we don't have to
do this one over again. We shouldn't have to. But as always, his
openness and fair mindedness has brought an ability to get things
through the maze and bring it to this point and we hope soon to the
President's desk.
In his 2 years as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee,
Senator Hatfield has certainly distinguished himself as an informed and
wise policymaker in the transportation arena. I have always admired his
leadership, and I will always treasure his friendship. Mr. President,
it is obvious there is only one person I would rather see as chairman
of that subcommittee than Senator Hatfield. I will not go any further.
Just a joke.
Once again, I commend this bill to all my colleagues, and I hope that
they will work with us to support the passage of the bill and that it
does not become a forum for other discussions. It is late in the year;
it is late in the week. We will soon be departing this place for other
activities back home, and it would be too bad if this bill became a
forum for debate that is unrelated particularly to transportation
matters.
With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3675, the
transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I have been a
member of the Subcommittee on Transportation for many years, and was
once chairman of the subcommittee. I have long been an advocate for
increased and sustained funding for our Nation's transportation
infrastructure.
[[Page S9129]]
The transportation appropriations bill is the preeminent contributor
to our Nation's annual investment in infrastructure. Our Nation's
economic prosperity depends heavily on the adequacy of our highways,
our airports, our railroads, and our transit systems. As such, this is
a critically important bill for the overall economic health of the
Nation.
This bill also finances our entire Federal effort in the area of
transportation safety, including the safety and security of our
aviation and rail systems. The recent explosion on TWA Flight 800,
which has been alluded to here already, and the associated loss of
life, serve as a cruel reminder of the critical safety mission executed
by our Department of Transportation.
I congratulate Senator Hatfield, the Transportation Subcommittee
chairman, and I congratulate the ranking member of the Transportation
Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, for their expeditious action, their
skillful and dedicated work on this bill.
Given the overall limitations we face for this year's appropriations
bills, I believe that this bill represents a fair and balanced approach
to the transportation needs of cities and communities throughout the
Nation.
And I am particularly pleased that the committee rejected what I
believe to be an ill-considered proposal by the administration that
would have placed a cap on previously funded obligations for highway
projects. Indeed, the bill before us provides an overall increase in
the Federal aid highway obligation ceiling which provides critically
needed highway funding for all 50 States.
So I commend Chairman Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg for presenting
to the Senate a bill that is free of controversial authorizing
legislation. On balance, although I would support substantially more
funding for the Nation's infrastructure than we are able to provide in
this bill, I believe that H.R. 3675 deserves the support of all
Senators.
Finally, Mr. President, I congratulate the efforts of the
subcommittee staff--Pat McCann, Anne Miano, and Joyce Rose for the
majority, and Peter Rogoff and Carole Geagley for the minority--for
their outstanding work on this very important measure.
This is the last time that Senator Hatfield will manage this
transportation bill on the floor of the Senate.
I thank him for his long and illustrious service to the Senate, to
his State, and to the Nation. I thank him for his steadfast friendship
over the years. I thank him for his bipartisanship, his true
bipartisanship, that he has demonstrated not only on this bill but on
many other bills and which has been a hallmark of his service in this
body. He has tremendous courage. As far as I am concerned, he is one of
those few men and women in the history of the Senate who is truly a
profile in courage.
I thank both the chairman and the ranking member again, as I say, for
their services to the Senate and to the people of this country and to
the country itself.
Emerson must have had men like these in mind when he said:
Not gold, but only men can make a nation great and strong;
Men who for truth and honor's sake stand fast and labor long;
Real men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly.
They build a nation's pillars deep
And lift them to the sky.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague and ranking
member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, for his kind personal
remarks. It has been a great pleasure and honor to work with Senator
Lautenberg in this role. I am grateful to him for his many suggestions
and recommendations.
I think, I say to Senator Lautenberg, if you and I were to really put
the focus on the hard work and the effort and the accomplishment of
this subcommittee, we would have to really look to our staff--your
staff, Peter Rogoff, and my staff, Pat McCann and Anne Miano--who
worked so well, beautifully together, meshing our common interests,
crafting a bill that we are able to stand here and defend before the
Senate.
I say, of Senator Byrd's very generous and kind remarks, that he has
been a mentor. I should be thanking him for those remarks because I am
sure that, like many, if not most of the Senate who have watched and
listened to Senator Byrd over the years, we have learned a great deal
not only about the Senate's history, but about the way legislation
proceeds and the cooperation, collaboration that must be achieved on
both sides of the aisle to pass legislation. I am very grateful for his
most generous remarks.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments
be considered and agreed to en bloc and that they be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment and that no points
of order be waived thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The committee amendments were agreed to, en bloc.
Amendments Nos. 5123 Through 5125, En Bloc
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have three technical amendments that I
offer on behalf of the committee. They have been cleared on both sides,
correcting the spelling, other such technical matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by
number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes amendments
numbered 5123 through 5125, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5123 through 5125) are as follows:
amendment no. 5123
Strike section 346 and insert the following:
SEC. 346. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VOLUNTARY SEPARATION
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' means the following agencies of the
Department of Transportation:
(A) the United States Coast Guard;
(B) the Research and Special Programs Administration;
(C) the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;
(D) the Office of the Secretary;
(E) the Federal Railroad Administration; and
(F) any other agency of the Department with respect to
employees of such agency in positions targeted for reduction
under the National Performance Review;
(2) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who is employed
by the agency serving under an appointment without time
limitation, and has been currently employed for a continuous
period of at least 3 years, but does not include--
(A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter
83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another
retirement system for employees of the agency;
(B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which
such employee is or would be eligible for disability
retirement under the applicable retirement system referred to
in subparagraph (A);
(C) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of
involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance;
(D) an employee who, upon completing an additional period
of service as referred to in section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 5597
note), would qualify for a voluntary separation incentive
payment under section 3 of such Act;
(E) an employee who has previously received any voluntary
separation incentive payment by the Federal Government under
this section or any other authority and has not repaid such
payment;
(F) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights
who is on transfer to another organization; or
(G) any employee who, during the twenty four month period
preceding the date of separation, has received a recruitment
or relocation bonus under section 5753 of title 5, United
States Code, or who, within the twelve month period preceding
the date of separation, received a retention allowance under
section 5754 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Agency Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--The head of an agency, prior to obligating
any resources for voluntary separation incentive payments,
shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight of the House of Representatives a strategic plan
outlining the intended use of such incentive payments and a
proposed organizational chart for the agency once such
incentive payments have been completed.
(2) Contents.--The agency's plan shall include--
(A) the positions and functions to be reduced or
eliminated, identified by organizational unit, geographic
location, occupational category and grade level;
[[Page S9130]]
(B) the number and amounts of voluntary separation
incentive payments to be offered; and
(C) a description of how the agency will operate without
the eliminated positions and functions.
(c) Authority To Provide Voluntary Separation Incentive
Payments.--
(1) In general.--A voluntary separation incentive payment
under this section may be paid by an agency to any employee
only to the extent necessary to eliminate the positions and
functions identified by the strategic plan.
(2) Amount and treatment of payments.--A voluntary
separation incentive payment--
(A) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's
separation;
(B) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of the basic pay of the employees;
(C) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be
entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United
States Code; or
(ii) an amount determined by an agency head not to exceed
$25,000 in fiscal year 1997, $20,000 in fiscal year 1998,
$15,000 in fiscal year 1999, or $10,000 in fiscal year 2000;
(D) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit; and
(E) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be
entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code,
based on any other separation.
(3) Limitation.--No amount shall be payable under this
section based on any separation occurring before the date of
the enactment of this Act, or after September 30, 2000.
(d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement
Fund.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments which it
is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 of
title 5, United States Code, an agency shall remit to the
Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of
the United States to the credit of the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 percent
of the final basic pay of each employee of the agency who is
covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary separation
incentive has been paid under this section.
(2) Definition.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), the term
``final basic pay'', with respect to an employee, means the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(e) Effect of Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
An individual who has received a voluntary separation
incentive payment under this section and accepts any
employment for compensation with the Government of the United
States, or who works for any agency of the United States
Government through a personal services contract, within 5
years after the date of the separation on which the payment
is based shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's
first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive
payment to the agency that paid the incentive payment.
(f) Reduction of Agency Employment Levels.--
(1) In general.--The total number of funded employee
positions in an agency shall be reduced by one position for
each vacancy created by the separation of any employee who
has received, or is due to receive, a voluntary separation
incentive payment under this section. For the purposes of
this subsection, positions shall be counted on a full-time-
equivalent basis.
(2) Enforcement.--The President, through the Office of
Management and Budget, shall monitor each agency and take any
action necessary to ensure that the requirements of this
subsection are met.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect October
1, 1996.
____
Amendment No. 5124
On page 63 of the bill, line 24, strike ``Arkansas'' and
insert ``Alaska''.
____
Amendment No. 5125
On page 60 of the bill, line 21, strike ``5307'' and insert
``5311''.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that the motions
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 5123 through 5125) were agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe the parliamentary situation is
the bill is open for further amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. Perhaps there are none, and we could go to third
reading. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5126
(Purpose: To fully fund the President's request for Aviation Security
Research)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes
amendment numbered 5126.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 5, line 17, strike ``132,500,000'' and insert
``132,499,000''.
On page 14, line 22, strike ``187,000,000'' and insert
``188,490,000''.
On page 38, line 5, strike ``200,000,000'' and insert
``198,510,000''.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this fully funds the President's
request for aviation security research. It is offset in budget
authority as well as outlays.
Mr. HATFIELD. It is cleared on this side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5126) was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment
was adopted.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table, Mr.
President.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want the Record to be clear that
this is ``human factors research for security.'' That is the title
under which this legislation is proposed.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, would the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. I would be happy to yield for a question from the
Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I understand the committee has included $6
million in the transportation appropriations bill for the development
of vessel traffic service systems or VTS systems by the Coast Guard. I
wanted to briefly ask the chairman whether it is the intent of the
committee's report language that the Coast Guard undertake a review of
this system, including the costs associated with implementing the
program, before proceeding with their plans to install these systems in
various ports around the country, including Mobile, AL.
The GAO report that the committee refers to in its report identified
serious underestimations of the cost of the VTS 2000 program. I
continue to have serious reservations about this system and the Coast
Guard's current plan for its implementation and use. It would appear
that the GAO has raised many important issues that need to be resolved
before the Coast Guard proceeds in the implementation of this program.
It is the intent of the committee that such a review take place by the
Coast Guard before it proceeds with the VTS program?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. The report language directs the Coast Guard to
tone down their ambitious plans, and to develop a common platform and
common architecture for vessel traffic systems before proceeding in the
future.
Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate the chairman's assurances on this matter.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am concerned that the committee report
does not contain bus and bus facility funds for the Regional
Transportation Commission of Clark County, NV. The RTC's CAT System has
witnessed phenomenal growth and has seen an annual increase of
ridership of over 36
[[Page S9131]]
percent. Its service hours and service miles per bus is more than
double that of any other transit system in the United States.
The RTC has requested $5 million to complete its integrated bus
maintenance facilities project to properly maintain and store its
equipment fleet, and $5 million for new rolling stock to initiate
express bus commuter service. Past transportation appropriations bills
have provided funding for this project, recognizing its need and
significance.
While I appreciate the many demands on the Senate for bus
discretionary funds, I urge the chairman to give full consideration to
the needs of Clark County, NV for this important funding.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct that
the RTC of Clark County is certainly a worthy candidate for
discretionary bus and bus facility funds. In fiscal year 1996, nearly
$17 million was provided for the project. I look forward to working
with the Senator to make every effort to assist in advancing its
project.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his efforts during the
appropriation process. I appreciate the fact that the Senate
transportation appropriation report includes $30 million for bus and
bus-related facilities in the State of Ohio. I would, however, like to
make sure that this $30 million will be made available to the Ohio
Department of Transportation to be used for bus and bus-related
facilities in a manner determined by the Ohio Department of
Transportation.
Mr. HATFIELD. I say to Senator DeWine that it is the intent of the
Appropriations Committee that the $30 million earmarked in Senate
Report 104-325 for Ohio bus and bus-related facilities be available to
the Ohio Department of Transportation to be used for bus and bus-
related facilities in a manner determined by the Ohio Department of
Transportation.
Mr. President, we have a list of notifications of Members that
indicated they wished to present an amendment--about a dozen. I invite
Members to the floor to present those amendments. We are going to have
to finish this bill tonight, as the leader indicated earlier, and I
hope the Senators would see fit, if they are interested in pursuing
these amendments, to appear on the floor and make their presentation.
At some point in time I think the courtesy of waiting for those
amendments will expire, and I will suggest we might go to a third
reading of the bill and pass the bill. My patience is growing less at
this point in time. I think every Senator is busy. I have many things I
can do rather than stand here waiting for other Senators.
I make a very strong appeal to Senators, and if their staffs are
present, to alert those Senators that we are here to do business. If
not, we will go to third reading.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 5127 and 5128, En Bloc
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en
bloc, on behalf of Senator Kohl and Senator Bond, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes amendments
numbered 5127 and 5128, en bloc.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 5127
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should
establish the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation as a
performance-based organization)
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
Sec. . It is the Sense of the Senate that Congress should
actively consider legislation to establish the Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation as a performance-based
organization on a pilot basis beginning in fiscal year 1998.
____
amendment no. 5128
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning the use of
full and open competition in procurement for the Federal Aviation
Administration and to require an independent assessment of the
acquisition management system of the Federal Aviation Administration)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROCUREMENT.
(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
should promote and encourage the use of full and open
competition as the preferred method of procurement for the
Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Independent Assessment.--Not later than December 31,
1997, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall--
(1) take such action as may be necessary to provide for an
independent assessment of the acquisition management system
of the Federal Aviation Administration that includes a review
of any efforts of the Administrator in promoting and
encouraging the use of full and open competition as the
preferred method of procurement with respect to any contract
that involves an amount greater than $50,000,000; and
(2) submit to the Congress a report on the findings of that
independent assessment.
(c) Full and Open Competition Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``full and open competition'' has the
meaning provided that term in section 4(6) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(6)).
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, these two amendments have been cleared
on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (No. 5127 and 5128), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I make an observation that the
amendments on the list that we have are all legislation--matters
relating to legislation on an appropriations bill. We have indicated
that in cases of emergency and timeframe problems, if they are cleared
by the authorizing chairman and the authorizing committee ranking
member, we would accept them. But we will not accept legislation on
this appropriations bill.
Our leadership, both Republican and Democratic, has already stated
that we would try to resist all riders on appropriations bills, which
held us up a great deal in the last fiscal year and caused us to go, in
part, into that situation where we had five appropriation bills that we
had to incorporate in an omnibus package 7 months into the fiscal year.
We are very desperately trying to avoid that this year. I am proud to
say that by the end of this week we will have passed nine appropriation
bills here in the Senate. I have already signed, today, the conference
report on the agricultural appropriations bill. We are hoping to have
five bills passed in the conference, ready for floor action, at the end
of this week.
So we are making very significant progress. We will report out the
number 12 appropriation bill from our committee, State, Justice,
Commerce, on Thursday of this week. We will report the last bill on the
first week in September, Labor-HHS. That would give us a schedule that
the Republican leader has put together, by which we would be able to
meet that October deadline a week to 10 days before the expiration of
this fiscal year. What a contrast to last year, and one that I would
like to be able to achieve.
So, again, I want to say that we have been here now for about a half-
hour waiting for amendments. I informed the Republican leader about 15
minutes ago that we were in this situation, waiting for some kind of
action, and that I wanted to consider third reading at an appropriate
time, which, to me, would be right now. But I am not the leader and,
consequently, I will confer with the leadership on that kind of a
decision. But I have to, again, assure our colleagues that we want to
do business with them. We want to consider their amendments that have
been cleared by both the chairman and the ranking member of authorizing
committees, because most all of them are authorization actions. And
that is a bipartisan policy that our leadership has
[[Page S9132]]
established and which this committee leadership has also agreed to.
I do not know what more we can say to require some action.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, to lend some further impetus to the
remarks of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I would
plead with my colleagues on the Democratic side to get down here if you
want to do business. I think it is a very poor reflection on what has
to be done to set the stage for transportation investments in the year
beginning October 1, a chance to establish the fact that things are
happening, that we are responding to the need for transportation
investment. For us to stand here while little, if anything, takes
place, I think, reflects very poorly on the commitment to getting the
job done.
I urge my colleagues, as we heard from Senator Hatfield, to come on
down, present your amendments, present the argument, and see if you can
win the case. If the amendments are important, then I fail to see that
there is no urgency to getting them down here, get them on the floor,
and let us discuss them.
This is the transportation bill. We are talking about billions of
dollars. We are talking about safety. We are talking about the way our
Nation competes with other countries. We are talking about quality of
air. We are talking about the consumption of fuel. We are talking about
so many things here in this bill, and to permit it to languish while we
sit here kind of staring at one another is, I think, unacceptable.
So I hope that we can encourage leadership on both sides, and the
Senators on both sides, to get with it, get done, get going so we can
get on to the next piece of business, or the next pieces of business
which are very important.
With that, I note the absence of interest and the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5129
(Purpose: To respond to the tragic explosion of a sugar beet processing
plant in Western Nebraska and to provide for the safe and efficient
interstate transportation of sugar beets)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of
Senators Kerrey and Exon to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Kerrey, for
himself and Mr. Exon, proposes an amendment numbered 5129.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
49 U.S.C. App. 2311 is amended by adding the following new
subsection:
(D) Nebraska--In addition to vehicles which the State of
Nebraska may continue to allow to be operated under
paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(B) of this section, the State of
Nebraska may allow longer combination vehicles that were not
in actual operation on June 1, 1991 to be operated within its
boundaries to transport sugar beets and from the field where
such sugar beets are harvested to storage, market, factory or
stockpile or from stockpile to storage, market or factory.
This provision shall expire on September 30, 1997.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is one of those examples of a
legislative action that has been cleared by the ranking member and the
chairman of the Commerce Committee, so under the exigencies of the
situation in Nebraska, it has been cleared on both sides to be adopted
here today on our bill.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5129) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5130
(Purpose: To allow funds previously appropriated for a highway safety
improvement project in Michigan to be used for construction of a
highway that is part of the project)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on
behalf of Senator Levin of Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 5130.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, MICHIGAN.
Of the amount appropriated for the highway safety
improvement project, Michigan, under the matter under the
heading ``Surface Transportation Projects'' under the heading
``FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION'' in title I of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-331; 108 Stat.
2478), for the purposes of right-of-way acquisition for
Baldwin Road, and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction between Walton Boulevard and Dixie Highway,
$2,000,000 shall be made available for construction of
Baldwin Road.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment by the Senator from
Michigan, Mr. Levin, that would move some money from one account to
another account to handle a situation in Michigan. This is not
legislation on an appropriations bill, and there is a zero budget
impact.
I believe it has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. So,
therefore, I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5130) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are now approaching 50 minutes that
we have waited here for Senators to arrive to offer amendments--50
wasted minutes. I really think we have approached the time for calling
of third reading on this bill and vote this bill out, since we have not
had response from Senators.
Is the Senator from North Dakota awaiting to present an amendment? I
refrain from asking for third reading at this point.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 5131
(Purpose: To require investigation of anticompetitive practices in air
transportation)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 5131.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, line 6 after ``$53,376,000,'' insert the
following: ``of which such sums as necessary shall be used to
investigate anticompetitive practices in air transportation,
enforce Section 41712 of Title 49, and report to Congress by
the end of the fiscal year on its progress to address
anticompetitive practices, and''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments. The
amendment I have just offered is an amendment that talks about the
issue of anticompetitive practices in the airline industry. I know
there are some in Congress who think that the deregulation of the
airline industry has been a wonderful bonanza for our country. But
there are some of us who live in the more sparsely populated areas of
our
[[Page S9133]]
country who do not believe it has been such a bonanza. The sparsely
populated States like North Dakota, for example, have less airline
service now and pay more for it than prior to deregulation.
I am not a big fan of airline deregulation. I think I would be a big
fan if I lived in Chicago and traveled to New York and Los Angeles,
because then I would have far more carriers competing, lower prices,
and a wide variety of flights to take. I suppose for folks who live in
those markets, this has been a wonderful bonanza. For folks who live
elsewhere, it has not worked out so well.
One of the interesting things about deregulation is that even when
you deregulate an industry like the airlines you must also continue to
have some kind of referee so that when someone does something that
distorts the market or injures the market, that someone can step in, an
authority can step in and say, ``No, this is a practice that is
anticompetitive.''
The whole notion of deregulation is to set free the competitive
forces by which, through competition, you have more service and lower
prices. But there are practices that are or can be inherently
anticompetitive, even under deregulation. That is especially the case
in rural areas.
Let me give you a couple of instances. Last week, in North Dakota we
learned that a jet carrier that had started up a couple of years ago to
provide regional jet service to our State and some other rural areas
was going to discontinue service in North Dakota. Now, that is not so
unusual. We have lost Continental Airlines from North Dakota. We have
lost Delta Airlines. We have lost American Airlines. Now we lose
Frontier Airlines. We are getting accustomed to losing airlines under
deregulation. We have one large dominant carrier left in North Dakota.
It is a good carrier. I think it is a good company. I speak well of it.
I admire its service. I think it does well. But we do not do well when
we do not have competition. When you do not have competition, you have
less service and pay higher prices.
Now, a regional jet carrier starts up to provide some regional jet
service competition. What happens under today's deregulation
environment when they try to do that? The large carriers squash them
like bugs. They say, ``We do not want competition. We do not want a new
carrier to start up.''
So what do they do? Well, first of all, under deregulation, the large
carriers have no requirement at all to have any sort of code-sharing
with any new carrier. Take the airline that started in North Dakota to
fly to the Denver hub. The Denver hub is dominated by one carrier, one
of the largest airline companies in the country. That carrier says to a
new jet service, ``We have no interest in cooperating with you in any
way. We are not interested in offering you code-sharing in any
circumstance.'' And if you want to make money you make money hauling
people from point A to point B, and that is it--from Bismarck, ND, to
Denver, CO. Of course most people are not traveling from Bismarck to
Denver. They are traveling from Bismarck to Denver and then to Los
Angeles, to Chicago, to Phoenix, to San Francisco, or elsewhere.
The result is, because a large carrier prohibits or simply refuses to
cooperate in any way--especially with code-sharing--with a startup
carrier, the startup carrier is severely disadvantaged.
In addition to that, the large carrier will go to the travel agents
in those communities and say, ``I tell you what, we do not want you to
ticket on this new competitive airline. We want you to ticket with us.
Go a more circuitous route, travel more miles, but travel with us. What
we will do is pay the travel agents' override commissions.'' They
effectively say to travel agents, ``If you keep people off this new
airline, we will pay you to do it.'' Of course, when the new airline
leaves that community and no longer serves, all these overrides, the
payments to the travel agents, will be gone. But that is the way this
practice works.
Fundamentally, anticompetitive practices by airlines who have gotten
big enough to wield the economic clout, the sheer muscle power, injure
the startup companies. If I dominate a hub, say in Minneapolis, Denver,
or some other hub, I will describe the kind of competition I have in
and out of that hub, because I can enforce that competition. I can
enforce it by keeping people out and by letting in only those who I
choose to let in. Now, that is the circumstance under deregulation
without a referee.
Now, I happen to think we do not have a very aggressive effort in the
Department of Transportation dealing with these issues of
anticompetitive behavior or anticompetitive practices. Am I critical of
DOT? Yes, I have been after them for 2 years on these issues. If I am a
new carrier that starts up to provide jet service from North Dakota to
Denver, for example, I do not even show up on the first one or two
computer screens when a travel agent in Los Angeles decides it will
book a flight from Los Angeles to North Dakota and back. I do not show
up on the screen as providing jet service. That is anticompetitive. It
is a computer reservation system, controlled by a dominate carrier that
is anticompetitive.
There are a number of anticompetitive practices that occur and not
much is done about it. For 2 years I have been after the Department of
Transportation to do something about it. They drag their feet for a
year and a half, and now there is some work, maybe they are starting to
do some things--probably too late, maybe not aggressive enough. My hope
is that perhaps in the near future we will see the Department of
Transportation do what it ought to do--become the referee, the arbiter
of fairness, in what is competitive and what is anticompetitive in this
industry.
The amendment I have offered simply says that the Secretary of
Transportation shall use such funds as is necessary to investigate
anticompetitive practices in air transportation, to enforce section
41712 of title 49, and to report to Congress by the end of the fiscal
year on its progress to address anticompetitive practices.
I hope if this is accepted, and I understand it will be, that the
Secretary of Transportation will take this seriously and do
aggressively what it should have been doing the last couple of years.
I understand some people would like there to be no discussion on
amendments that are offered that are being accepted. I am sorry about
that, but the fact is I have also been waiting here for an hour, and
when I offer an amendment, I intend to be able to speak on it as I
wish.
I have a couple of other amendments that I will offer. But I ask that
this amendment be accepted, if it is acceptable to the majority and
minority.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota
makes a very good case. Despite the fact that I come from one of the
most active transportation centers of the country, New Jersey, and we
are the most densely populated State, we need access to aviation and so
forth. I agree that the problems that have developed since deregulation
have not always been things that we anticipated.
I talked with the Secretary of Transportation, and I made the point
that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota made so eloquently
just now on the floor. He tells me--and I am sure this is nothing new
to the Senator from North Dakota--about the fact that United Airlines
has agreed with the cooperative baggage arrangements and cooperative
ticketing, though code sharing has not yet become part of the picture.
Unfortunately, in the deregulated mode, the contracts are between
airlines. But I am assured that the Secretary will be looking at the
anticompetitive situation of small rural airports around the country,
whether jet service is available and why it is discontinued. I have
that commitment to him. I pass that on to the Senator from North
Dakota, so he has a basis for review as time goes by.
We continue to subsidize essential air service in the hope that we
will be of some help. Meanwhile, I think the Senator has a good point.
We accept his amendment from this side. I assume that the other side
also is agreeable.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has there been a modification of the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sent up a modified version of the
amendment, which is before us at this time.
[[Page S9134]]
Mr. STEVENS. Has the Senator modified his amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not technically.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator makes a good point. The clerk did not
fully read the amendment by our request. I wonder if we could just have
a reminder about what is an item to item 1 and 2, where it starts----
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I merely want to find out, is the Senator
going to modify the amendment in the form I have before me? This is
amendment No. 5131, is that correct?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I can clear that up. I only offered one
amendment. It is at the desk. It is the amendment that I had cleared
through the manager.
Mr. STEVENS. I misunderstood the situation. I thought it was being
modified from its original form.
Mr. DORGAN. The original amendment was never offered.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well. Really, as an original sponsor of the whole
concept of the essential air service, I am pleased to see this
amendment come forth in this form. We would have had to oppose the
creation of a new office. But this does not do that, so we are prepared
to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5131) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5132
(Purpose: To reduce the level of funding for the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] proposes an amendment
numbered 5132.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following,
On page 25, strike lines 9 through 14, provided that the
$200,000,000 thus saved be made available to the Secretary
for high priority rail, aviation and highway safety purposes.
On page 29, line 6, strike ``$592,000,000'' and insert
``$462,000,000''.
On page 29, line 9, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert
``$120,000,000, provided that the $130,000,000 thus saved be
made available to the Secretary for high priority rail,
aviation and highway safety purposes.''
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask if the managers would like to agree
to a time agreement. I would be more than happy to discuss that.
Mr. STEVENS. I am interested in a time agreement if the Senator would
indicate how long he might want.
Mr. McCAIN. If the managers are agreeable, 15 minutes on a side.
Senator Biden asked to be notified at the time of the presentation of
the amendment. He also said he would agree to a time agreement, but he
would like to have time to debate this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator wishes time to contact the Senator from
Delaware. If the Senator will proceed, we will try to get a time
agreement.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I fully intend to enter into a time
agreement with the managers of the bill at the appropriate time when
they come up with a proposal.
Mr. President, this amendment would restore Amtrak's funding to the
House passed level and provide the savings to the Secretary of
Transportation for high priority rail, highway, and aviation safety
purposes.
The House overwhelmingly passed the fiscal 1997 Transportation
appropriations bill by a vote of 403 to 2 and appropriated a total of
$462 million for Amtrak's operating expenses and capital improvements.
The Senate has added $330 million to this bill for Amtrak's capital
accounts, adding $200 million for the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Program which the House did not fund at all. This amounts to at least a
61-percent increase in Amtrak funding over the House appropriated
levels. While I understand that some of my colleagues believe that if
we continue to throw additional money at Amtrak, its financial problems
will disappear, I believe the House-passed funding levels are more than
sufficient and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I also know that some will come to the floor to argue that unless we
give Amtrak this massive increase in capital grants over and above the
House-passed level, Amtrak will find it even harder to reach self-
sufficiency. While their intentions may be good, we have been
repeatedly promised that with increased expenditures Amtrak will become
self-sufficient. That has never been the case before. I do not believe
that will be the case today.
Amtrak began in 1971 as a 2-year experiment. Since its creation in
1971, Amtrak has cost the American taxpayer about 418 billion. This $18
billion has gone to subsidizing rail transportation for less than one-
half of 1 percent of America's intercity rail passengers. In addition,
a recent study by economists Wendell Cox and Jean Love found that the
vast majority of Amtrak riders earn more than $40,000 a year.
Let me just show my colleagues Amtrak funding from 1995. In 1995,
there will be allotted to the State of New York $215.862 million; to
the State of California, $119.531 million; the State of Pennsylvania,
$11.945 million; the State of Washington $108.787 million. Those four
States will receive $556.125 million. A percentage of the funding----
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. Let me finish my statement, I say to the Senator.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have the floor. I ask for the regular
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I would appreciate it if the Senator from New Jersey
would observe the regular order. I said to him I do not wish to yield
the floor at this time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Jersey does not need a lesson on
protocol.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from New Jersey obviously needs a lesson on
the rules of the Senate because he interrupted me again as I have the
floor.
I ask the Chair for the floor again. I hope that the Senator from New
Jersey will not interrupt again as long as I choose not to yield the
floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on chart No. 2, I would like to show
Amtrak revenues and expenses for fiscal years 1988 through 1994. As we
can see, the expenses continue to go up and the revenues are basically
flat.
This second chart reveals how, over the years, Amtrak's expenses have
steadily grown at an accelerated pace while revenue have remained
virtually the same. I believe this shows that Amtrak's problems are
fundamental and the only question is whether the Federal Government
will, at a minimum, put some limits on the amount of taxpayer dollars
we are willing to lose to a failed experiment.
The point made by this third chart is basic. Amtrak appropriations
have grown over its 25-year existence, and despite this fact, Amtrak
still never seems to have enough Federal subsidization to cover its
losses.
Mr. President, I remember with great clarity in 1983 when I came to
the House of Representatives of the United States when I was visited by
a man that I admired as much as any man I have ever known in my life,
the former Secretary of the Navy who I had known on my tour in the
Navy, Mr. Graham Claytor, Secretary Graham Claytor. Secretary Claytor
was then President of Amtrak, and Secretary Claytor assured me that
Amtrak funding would no longer be needed after 5 years; absolutely that
would be the end because Secretary Claytor, and the other people who
ran Amtrak and other Members of Congress, said that after 5 years there
would be no need for any more Federal funding because Amtrak would be
self-sufficient.
I would be glad to include for the Record how time after time after
time over many previous years since 1971 that the assurances were given
to this body and to the American taxpayers. ``Do not worry. Four or 5
years from now the funding required for Amtrak will be finished.''
[[Page S9135]]
Mr. President, on October 8, 1995, George Will wrote a very
interesting and entertaining article that I would like to quote. He
says:
Long ago, before Washington decided it did everything so
well it should start running a passenger railroad, American
slang included a phrase used to express dismay about
mismanagement of organizations. The phrase is ``Helluva way
to run a railroad.'' Speaking of Amtrak . . .
Congress is speaking of it because conservatives are in a
Margaret Thatcher mood. It was said she cold not see an
institution without swatting it with her handbag.
Republicans, who praise governmental minimalism, can hardly
close their year of glory without asking why the government
is in the railroad business.
In a sense it has been for more than a century. The word
``cordial'' hardly suggests the intimacy between government--
federal and state--and railroads in the 19th century, when 10
percent of the public domain was given in land grants to the
transcontinental railroads. The Union Pacific was given one-
tenth of Nebraska--4,845,997 acres.
Amtrak began, as did so much that makes today's
conservatives cross, under Richard Nixon, during whose
administration there occurred the largest peacetime expansion
of government power in American history (wage and price
controls) and the creation of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
forced busing and racial set-asides. He failed to get
Congress to enact a new entitlement, a guaranteed annual
income, and to embark on what is now called ``industrial
policy'' by funding development of a supersonic transport
aircraft.
``All through grade school,'' said Nixon, ``my ambition was
to become a railroad engineer.'' Would that he had. In March
1970, the largest operator of passenger trains, Penn Central,
on the verge of bankruptcy, sought permission to end
passenger service west of Harrisburg and Buffalo. For that,
government deserved a portion of blame, the Interstate
Commerce Commission having resisted rate increases
commensurate with wage increases unions were winning. In a
textbook example of how bad government begets more
government, Amtrak was born.
It began operations in 1971, ostensibly as a two-year
experiment. It has lost money since 1971, partly because it
has been a mini-welfare state appended to the welfare state:
It has been forbidden to contract out union jobs, and laid-
off workers have been entitled to six years of severance pay.
So, having helped make private railroads anemic (jet
aircraft, better highways and inept railroad management
contributed mightily to the anemia), the government piled on
Amtrak its mandates that would keep it running in the red.
Helluva way to run a railroad? What do you expect from
something created in defiance of market forces and regarded
by its creators, the political class, as several varieties of
pork, including an entitlement for small communities that
want the government to guarantee continuing rail service for
which there is weak demand?
Recently a full-page magazine ad by Amtrak bore this
message at the bottom of the page: ``No federal funds were
used to pay for this message.'' What mendacity. Money is
fungible, so taxpayers paid for as large a portion of the
cost of that ad as they pay of the overall costs of Amtrak--
about 20 percent. And Amtrak's ads are not producing
congestion down at the old railroad depot. Amtrak carries
less than one percent of the people who travel between
cities, and half of its passengers are in the Northeast
Corridor. Most passengers are middle class, many of them
business travelers. Almost all have air or long-haul bus
transportation alternatives.
Defenders of the subsidies say, as defenders of subsidies
do, that we are all benefiting so much that the subsidies
``pay for themselves.'' Their argument is that because of
passenger trains, highways are less congested, air is less
polluted, we are delaying the evil day when federal money
will have to help build another airport for Boston, and so
on. There is some truth in all these arguments and a lot in
this one: Government even more heavily subsidizes air and
road passengers. United Airlines is not expected to build
airports, and Greyhound is not responsible for maintaining
the highways.
However, Congress is poised to shrink Amtrak subsidies from
more than $700 million next year to zero by 2002 at the
latest, when Amtrak is scheduled to be privatized.
That obviously, has not been the case since Mr. Will wrote this
article.
Mr. Will continues:
Its roadbed needs work, especially in the Northeast, and
its rolling stock is old (the average car is 23 years old),
so even with more reasonable work rules and more latitude to
rationalize routes, privatization may not be possible. But
trying to get the government out of railroading is not
optional if the conservatives' determination to rationalize
government is real.
Mr. President, this money that I am asking to be reduced would go to
much needed rail, air, and road safety. We all realize how much safety
is important; indeed, uppermost in the minds of many people as a result
of some of the aircraft accidents that have taken place, some of the
rail accidents that have taken place in America, and also some of the
continued terrible tragedies that afflict the highways day in and day
out.
So, Mr. President, I wonder if the managers of the bill are ready to
enter into a time agreement?
In the meantime, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that on this amendment there be
a time agreement with 30 minutes on the side of those who oppose
Senator McCain's amendment and another 5 minutes for Senator McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If we can modify that, and that is that there be no
second-degree amendments prior to a motion to table.
Mr. STEVENS. That time is on or in relation to this amendment and
that there be no second-degree amendments in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment by the Senator from Arizona. Cutting funding for Amtrak back
to the inadequate level set by the House would be a big mistake and
very bad public policy, in my view. It would be a formula for failure
for the only intercity passenger rail service we have in America. The
amendment would frustrate Amtrak's ongoing attempts to become self-
sufficient. Instead of saving any money, it would waste funds already
provided for passenger rail by virtually guaranteeing the demise of
Amtrak.
It is a formula for failure, Mr. President, because it prevents
Amtrak from completing the comprehensive reforms it needs to eventually
become self-sufficient in its day-to-day operations.
I know my friends have heard me over the last 20 years make this same
point. But no passenger rail service in the world--and passenger rail
plays an important role all over the world--no passenger rail service
in the world is, in fact, operated without public support for its
capital needs. Whether it is in Europe or Japan, the most advanced
industrialized economies in the world, not one passenger rail system in
the world operates without support for its capital needs. It is these
capital investments, the improvements to the Northeast corridor to
carry high-speed trains and funds to purchase new locomotives and
passenger cars for the western part of the United States as well as the
Northeast corridor, that the McCain amendment hits the hardest.
Without upgrades to the bridges, without straightening out the
curves, without completion of the electrification of the rail
connections between Washington and Boston, Amtrak would be unable to
attract the additional passengers it needs to earn more operating
income.
Mr. President, we have put Amtrak on a very strict diet. We have cut
service. We have cut subsidies. We have gotten a commitment that they
will be self-sufficient by the year 2001. Amtrak on the east coast
works on an electrification system, overhead electrical wires, and we
have spent millions of dollars to upgrade the system from New York to
Boston to allow high-speed Metroliner runs from Boston all the way to
Washington. We have had to upgrade the bridges. We are well beyond New
Haven and working our way up. This amendment would stop that project
cold, absolutely cold.
The Senate is on record in support of providing a half cent from the
Federal gasoline tax to provide for Amtrak's
[[Page S9136]]
capital budget. This is a step that I believe has to be taken as soon
as possible. But until then, Amtrak will continue to require adequate
funding through the appropriations process. I have been working here
along with my colleague, Senator Roth, and others for years and years
to get a dedicated source of funding for Amtrak. We are on the verge of
doing that. Once that is done, one-half cent would provide $600 million
a year in capital costs.
That dedicated capital fund would be able to underwrite the capital
cost of the entire Amtrak system coast to coast. But, in the meantime,
absent that funding source, to eliminate the Northeast corridor
improvements and decimate the remainder of their capital budget
nationwide would literally be the end of the railroad. It becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. We say we want this outfit to be self-
sufficient, and the very things needed to make it self-sufficient are
the things we are going to deny it before we get to that point.
My friend from Arizona said, I am told, that the average Amtrak
passenger makes $40,000 a year and does not need a subsidy, et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera. I would like to put this thing in focus. My
Western colleagues come to us in the East, and they say, ``An integral
part of our economy is water.'' They point out to us, time and again,
that we need to vote to subsidize their farmers, to subsidize their
cities, to subsidize their drinking water. And we do. We spend tens of
billions of dollars a year--tens of billions of dollars a year.
I will never forget the first time, as a young man, I flew from the
east coast to the west coast. I will never forget flying over the
foothills of the Rocky Mountains and then on the other side, seeing all
these concentric circles on the ground. I wondered what they were,
these concentric circles. I had been in an airplane before, but I had
never flown coast to coast.
All of a sudden, I realized that is my mother's tax dollars, on
Social Security. That is my tax dollars. It is my dad's tax dollars, on
Social Security. Subsidizing what? Subsidizing western farm areas,
subsidizing Senator McCain's in-laws and himself and others' drinking
water. That is OK with me. We are one nation. The purpose of one nation
is for each part of the country to work together. The whole is greater
than the sum of the parts. All the parts of the Nation need different
things. I do not hear Senator McCain or other Western Senators coming
here and saying: You know, let us do away with subsidizing those
farmers. Let us do away with subsidizing the water John Doe drinks in
Phoenix, AZ. And I am not here doing that.
But rail passenger service is critical to my section of the country
and to the west coast. It is critical. If we eliminate Amtrak, how many
more lanes of interstate highway are we going to be able to put in?
What is it going to do to the environment? What is it going to do to
the air? All Amtrak wants is a shot, a chance, a shot to make
themselves self-sufficient.
I will not be on the floor trying to restore Amtrak money for
operating costs if we get the half-cent gas tax, a measly half cent.
But the fact of the matter is, the House Transportation Committee and
Congressman Wolf cut this significantly, the same amount that my friend
and colleague from Arizona wants to cut it. Senator Hatfield and
Senator Lautenberg and their colleagues in the Appropriations Committee
have repaired the damage done by the House bill. And, as the chairman
of the House Transportation Committee, Congressman Wolf, admitted, the
House levels were wholly inadequate and were intended to force the
adoption of the half-cent proposal.
I am not sure what I think of that strategy, but I certainly agree
that Amtrak funding levels in the House bill, the levels called for in
Senator McCain's amendment, would be totally inadequate. The McCain
amendment is a proposal to kill Amtrak; let there be no mistake about
that. As a small State in the Northeast corridor, Delaware would be
hard hit by the loss of a major part of its transportation system. As a
major center for the repair and maintenance of railroads for more than
a century, Delaware also faces the loss of important jobs under the
severe cuts in the Northeast corridor and the capital budget of Amtrak.
But as Senator Lautenberg forcefully argued, Amtrak plays a key role in
the whole country's transportation system. As Senator Hatfield, the
distinguished departing chair of the Appropriations Committee, well
knows, the west coast is a major beneficiary of passenger rail as well.
I acknowledge that, because of all the cuts we made in Amtrak over
the past, not every State or region benefits equally from Amtrak. I
acknowledge that. But I do not benefit from the water subsidies either.
Delaware farmers do not benefit like the farmers from Arizona. My
mother does not benefit, like the Senator's family does. I understand
that. That is America.
Senator McCain comes from a desert. I come from a place where there
is a lot of water. I come from a place where we are overgrown with
highways, where we have trouble breathing the air. Passenger rail is
needed to relieve traffic congestion and air pollution. It is needed
badly.
I will leave Senator McCain's water alone if he leaves my railroad
alone.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. May I have 1 more minute?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I want to stress that Amtrak is not important to just one
part of the country or to just a few customers. I understand the
distinguished majority leader has been assured by his constituents of
the importance of Amtrak to the State of Mississippi. If Amtrak were an
airline, it would be the largest air carrier in the country. Amtrak is
the single largest individual passenger carrier on the east coast, and
to replace Amtrak's service in the East, as well as around the country,
would require more lanes of interstate highway and more air pollution,
more airport construction, additional safety concerns and increased
congestion for all parts of the Nation. So let us not kid ourselves
that Amtrak is not important to all parts of our country. But I agree,
it is of particular importance to my State and the east coast.
I thank the chairman and ranking member, and I yield back the 12
second I may have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate Appropriations
Committee has approved full funding for Amtrak operations, capital
support, and the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. I regret this
amendment to cut funding for Amtrak by $173 million is being offered.
Amtrak, as has been pointed out, provides service for millions of
Americans, a competitive service at a competitive price. Through a
modern nationwide passenger rail system, traffic congestion, and air
pollution are reduced by this fuel-efficient alternative to highway and
air travel. I certainly recognize that Amtrak cannot survive much
longer as a viable entity in its current financial condition. Many of
us are familiar with the oft-cited GAO report documenting the widening
gap between Amtrak's revenues and expenses since the beginning of this
decade. For the past 2 years, the question facing Congress is, what
should we do about Amtrak? I do not think anyone believes that simply
increasing or even continuing in perpetuity Amtrak's annual subsidy are
wise solutions. Instead, a better solution has been proposed. This
solution, partially embodied within the Amtrak authorization bill, will
enable Amtrak to operate as much like a private business as possible.
Separate legislation, which constitutes the second part of this
proposal, would redirect one-half cent of the Federal gas tax to a new
passenger rail trust fund similar to those existing for highway and air
travel.
I will just say this. Transporting people has never been a profitable
business for railroads. At least it certainly has not been in the past
50 years. So, I believe it is unfortunate that prospects for passage of
this Amtrak authorization bill and legislation to redirect the half
cent of the Federal gas tax, is being proposed. I think if there is no
[[Page S9137]]
Amtrak authorization bill and no steady revenue source to allow Amtrak
to modernize and privatize, there is going to be trouble. That is the
situation we have today. Funding for Amtrak operations and capital
support in the Northeast corridor are urgently required for the short-
term survival of intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak does want to
end its dependence on Federal subsidies. However, until such a plan is
in place, Amtrak simply must have the yearly support needed to continue
at a minimal level.
I am a user of Amtrak, Mr. President. It is very important to the
section of the country I have, and, therefore, I urge the opposition
and, indeed, the defeat of the amendment proposed by the Senator from
Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
just heard the statement by Senator Chafee and agree with his comments.
I would like to find a way for Amtrak to become more self-sufficient. I
would like to find an additional revenue source for Amtrak. But the
fact is, until that occurs, if we do not provide adequate funding,
there will not be an Amtrak that represents a national rail system
providing service across the country.
If this amendment is adopted, we will be left only with a Northeast
corridor service for Amtrak, period. There will be no other Amtrak in
the rest of the country. We will have service in the Northeast
corridor, and we will have no other service anywhere else. I don't
think that advances the interest of a country that does need a mix of
transportation services, including rail passenger service.
In fact, the committee cut the Amtrak funding by about $40 million
from last year. This amendment would then reduce it another couple
hundred million dollars. This does not, in my judgment, move us in the
right direction. It moves us exactly in the wrong direction, if you
believe that we ought to have some kind of rail passenger system as a
national system.
If you believe it only ought to be regional, then you probably will
end up all right with this, although I don't think it provides
sufficient funding. But if you believe we ought to have a national rail
passenger system, then this amendment would severely injure the
opportunity to do that, because we would not have a national rail
passenger system if this amendment is adopted.
I thank the Senator from New Jersey for the time, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 13 minutes, 43
seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. How many?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes, 40 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The other side has?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself so much time as I will
use between now and the 13 minutes plus.
Mr. President, I indicate my strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Arizona. It almost sounds like a vendetta.
Talk about $18 billion worth of spending on Amtrak--my gosh, we spend
over $8 billion a year on aviation; we spend over $20 billion a year on
highways. Amtrak is the only serious railroad opportunity we have for
passengers, and it has continued to prove its merit and its worth as
time has gone by. Amtrak's farebox comes closer to its revenues than
any other major passenger rail service in the world.
It is ridiculous for the United States of America not to have a
significant passenger rail service. Just look at what would happen in
the Northeast corridor where it is believed that we service almost 100
million people. The Northeast corridor would need 10,000 full DC-9's a
year to carry the traffic. Well, perhaps that's not true. Maybe we
could push them onto the highways. We could put some 11 million people
in their cars and tell them to drive between New York and Washington or
Boston and Washington or Boston and New York or Boston and New Haven or
Boston and Hartford or Boston and Providence. Get in your cars, use
more gas, take up more time, that will mean more congestion, more foul
air. That is what the alternative is.
I have never seen anything so shortsighted in my life, but the speech
sounds good--throw out statistics that have no merit in fact. One says
we allocate by State, as I saw the chart displayed by the Senator from
Arizona, at which time when I had a question, he refused to answer it.
That is his privilege. He had the floor, and he is right, he did have
the floor. But there is also something around here called common
courtesy. But we pass on that these days.
Mr. President, I have a letter in hand from no fewer than 19 of the
Nation's Governors, both Republican and Democratic Governors, urging
adequate capital funding for Amtrak. Among the Governors that have
urged the committee to provide adequate capital funding of Amtrak are
several who are mentioned as the potential Vice President to the
nominee--the likely nominee--of the Republican Party: Gov. Tom Ridge
from the State of Pennsylvania; my own Governor, very popular, very
thoughtful, very well thought of, Gov. Christine Todd Whitman; Governor
Pataki of New York; Governor Weld of Massachusetts; and Governor
Rowland of Connecticut. I dare say, probably six Vice Presidential
candidates there.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter sent to Senator Hatfield and
myself from 19 of the Nation's Governors be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
record, as follows:
June 25, 1996.
Hon. Mark Hatfield,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Hatfield and Lautenberg: As you consider
various options for the FY 1997 Transportation Appropriations
bill, we urge you to provide adequate capital funding for the
National Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak). The General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that in order to keep
Amtrak running and to reduce its dependence on federal
operating assistance, Amtrak requires an annual capital
subsidy of $500 to $600 million. Amtrak, the Administration
and GAO agree that the future reduction of Amtrak's federal
operating subsidy is dependent on continued capital
investment in Amtrak's infrastructure.
Specifically, we urge you to support, at an absolute
minimum, last year's level of funding for general capital--
$230 million--and the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Program--$115 million. These funding levels are consistent
with the assumptions made in the recently-adopted budget
resolution and with the authorizations levels which have
passed the House and are pending in the Senate.
As you are aware, the Amtrak Board of Directors is strongly
committed to eliminating its dependence on federal operating
assistance over the next six years. Amtrak's ability to
continue to reduce its operating costs, however, is dependent
on adequate federal capital support.
While we realize the complex and difficult decisions you
face this year with respect to funding transportation
programs, we urge you to carefully consider the productivity
improvements that have been made at Amtrak and to support an
ongoing federal role in maintaining this nation's rail
system, even as the federal operating subsidy is phased out.
Sincerely,
Tom Carper, Governor, State of Delaware, Gaston Caperton
Governor, State of West Virginia; Howard Dean,
Governor, State of Vermont; George Pataki, Governor,
State of New York; Ben Nelson, Governor, State of
Nebraska; Bill Weld, Governor, State of Massachusetts;
Zell Miller, Governor, State of Georgia; John Rowland,
Governor, State of Connecticut; Roy Romer, Governor,
State of Colorado; Parris Glendening, Governor, State
of Maryland; Tom Ridge, Governor, State of
Pennsylvania; Mike Lowry, Governor, State of
Washington; Christine Whitman, Governor, State of New
Jersey; Bob Miller, Governor, State of Nevada, Mel
Carnahan, Governor, State of Missouri; Evan Bayh,
Governor, State of Indiana; Lawton Chiles, Governor,
State of Florida; Jim Guy Tucker, Governor, State of
Arkansas; Angus King, Governor, State of Maine.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent years, as Amtrak has been
required to reduce service and, in some cases, eliminate service to
several States, I have noticed that some of the loudest complaints have
come from some of our States in the West and in the Midwest. I
appreciate the fact the
[[Page S9138]]
Senator from North Dakota had comments to make in favor of Amtrak
service.
A lot of people are complaining that we have reduced or eliminated
Amtrak service. Well, they just don't have the income, and when you
think of what it takes to put this system in shape, it is de minimis
compared to the service that is being offered. We can dress it up in
various terms: high-income people ride the train. See what it looks
like and see people getting on there with tattered luggage and not able
to figure out another way to get there. It is easy to stand on a high
horse and criticize those who ride Amtrak. Try it; you may like it.
The fact of the matter is, while Amtrak's funding levels, as
contained in this bill, are higher than the House-passed level, they
still remain far lower than the level requested by the administration.
The Senator from Arizona wants to take the funding down by almost $400
million, when we worked like the devil, skimped and saved and moved and
changed to try and get a balanced funding bill, a balanced
transportation bill. And the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], worked
very hard to do that.
So, Mr. President, the House Appropriations Committee made a
calculated judgment to extract the vast majority of its transportation
cuts from Amtrak's budget. I do not agree with those priorities, and
neither does the chairman of the committee itself.
The one thing that we ought to be aware of is that if we eliminate
Amtrak, we eliminate a serious asset that this country of ours
requires. We are the only country in the world, the only country of the
more developed countries in the world that does not recognize that you
have to invest and you have to subsidize its national passenger rail
system. Get on the TGV in France or get on the bullet trains in Japan;
the Government pays an awful lot more on a proportionate basis than we
are willing to put in Amtrak at our most generous moments.
Mr. President, I yield for a minute or so to my friend from Delaware
who has asked to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. BIDEN. I ask for 1 minute.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see my friend from Arizona is still on
the floor. In terms of subsidies, I point out again, because the
argument was made, there is a little thing called the central Arizona
water project. That is 3.5 billion bucks that my mom is helping to pay
for. She will never drink a drop of the water, but Arizona needs it. It
is $3.5 billion needed, badly needed--$3.5 billion.
But our country needs Amtrak as well, on the west coast and on the
east coast. I yield whatever time I have left.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Arizona asked for the floor. It is
all right with me.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. McCAIN. Sure.
Mr. STEVENS. There is an indication that the chairman will not be
able to get back in the time we thought he would get back. I think
there are going to be others that seek time on this bill. Will the
Senator agree we would extend time on each side for another 10 minutes?
I ask unanimous consent that the current time agreement be extended for
10 additional minutes for Senator McCain and 10 additional minutes for
Senator Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. While my friend from Delaware is still on the floor, I
will say there is no one obviously that knows Amtrak better than the
Senator from Delaware, who every evening travels and takes advantage of
that opportunity to be back in Delaware with his family and with his
friends and his constituents. And I, for one, respect and admire that
dedication that the Senator from Delaware has displayed to both his
family and the people that he represents. It is obvious why they keep
sending him back here.
The Senator from Delaware also mentioned to me that if we did cut
Amtrak, we would probably get a lot more speeches from the Senator from
Delaware, which I would find enlightening, but others may not.
I understand the commitment that the Senator from Delaware has. I
point out, the central Arizona project, as the Senator from Delaware
knows, was completed, and the State of Arizona will be repaying the
Federal Government for the cost of that.
It is obvious that your then-dollars are not the same as now-dollars.
I know the Senator from Delaware appreciates that. My problem is, I say
to the Senator from Delaware, this is an unending subsidy, apparently,
when the Amtrak authorities themselves maintain every few years that
there is only a few more years of subsidy.
My question to the Senator from Delaware is, as they cut more and
more service, and basically you are left with the Northeast Corridor
and the San Diego-LA route, which is basically what is left, and it is
no longer a national rail system for any intents and purposes, how long
would this system, which originally was conceived in 1971 to last for 2
years--2 years of subsidies was the deal when it began in 1971--how
long will be the requirement to have these subsidies provided by the
taxpayers for which one-half of 1 percent of all of the users of
transportation, rail transportation, in America, make use of? That is,
I think, a legitimate question.
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to take 30 seconds to answer the
question.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. I yield
time to the Senator from Delaware from my time to respond.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think it is a mistake, but in fact the
Congress has agreed--any subsidy would end by the year 2001. The only
reasonable way for that to occur, Mr. President, is if in fact we are
able to get that half-cent trust fund set up. But whether we get that
or not, in the year 2001 this is gone. I think Amtrak made a mistake
agreeing to that, to be completely honest with my friend. But that is
the answer to the question.
The drop-dead date is the year 2001. In my view, they will not make
it--to be completely candid with my friend--they will not make it
unless they get that half-cent trust fund.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say with all due respect to the Senator
from Delaware, wasn't that what they said in 1971 when they said it
will only be 2 more years? And wasn't that what they said in 1983 when
Graham Claytor, a man I respect more than almost any other man I have
ever known, said, ``In 4 years we'll be done''? They said, ``In 4 years
we'll be done.'' It is always, always, always 4 or 5 years out, I say
to the Senator from Delaware. Really what it has proved is that once
you start a system on the Federal dole, it is going to continue
forever. And that is the case here, unfortunately, with Amtrak, and why
this amendment will not prevail again.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the manager yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my friend from Arizona makes at least two
valid points--and many more--but two valid points. One is that if
Amtrak is out of business, I will be here. I will have to be in
Washington; and it means I will not be running out of here after the
last vote to get the train home, which means I will get to speak more.
That may be inducement enough for my colleagues to vote to continue to
subsidize Amtrak, so I am not here late at night debating.
But another truism that the Senator stated is that this has been a
subsidy. It is an ongoing subsidy. But when he puts it in the context
of being on the dole, you have to put it in the context of all other
transportation systems. We subsidize airline tickets more. The average
income of people flying in airlines, I suspect, is as high or higher
[[Page S9139]]
than anyone getting on an Amtrak train.
We subsidize those airline tickets a number of ways. They are tax
deductible for business expenses. We build the airports. We build the
towers and pay the air traffic controllers, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera. We also subsidize the highways beyond what we collect in the
highway trust fund moneys.
So, Mr. President, all modes of transportation in the United States
are subsidized. It seems to me rational public policy would dictate us
to look at what makes sense. Different regions have different
requirements. I see my friend from North Dakota is here. Amtrak is
useful to him, but he does not need Amtrak as much as he needs
highways. In Delaware we do not need any more highways. We cannot
afford any more highways in my State or the State of Rhode Island or
the State of New Jersey or the State of New York and so on and so
forth.
So every region of the country has different needs. It is true. They
are all subsidized. And the question here is, it seems to me, the
appropriate question is, What is an appropriate amount of subsidy? And
it seems to me when Amtrak, having its budget cut by a third over the
last couple years, having trimmed down significantly, this is not an
appropriate cut. I thank the Chair for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair and the Senator from New Jersey.
I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona,
Mr. McCain.
Before I outline my reasons for opposing this amendment, I would like
to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Hatfield, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation, and Senator Lautenberg, a very strong
supporter of passenger rail, for their work on this bill. I believe
this bill is a tremendous and necessary improvement over the one passed
by the House, and we have these two gentlemen to thank for that.
Regarding the amendment offered by my colleague from Arizona, I think
the point made by the Senator from Delaware is very valid. All of the
modes of transportation are subsidized to a degree. We hear much about
the much vaunted Swiss railroad system. They are subsidized. The one in
France is subsidized. The one in Japan is subsidized. But in return for
that subsidization, the people of the area get a service and a greater
degree of safety and comfort that they would not get otherwise.
As some of my colleagues are aware, I wrote a book on this subject
some 30 years ago, ``Megalopolis Unbound.'' And the book remains
current today because so little has been done in those 30 years.
I hope that we will sustain the effort of the Transportation
subcommittee and keep the money in for Amtrak. I am hopeful that, by
doing so, we can really make progress in enhancing intercity high speed
passenger rail. In so doing, perhaps we can avoid having a future
Member of Congress come along 30 years from now, as I am now, lamenting
that much more needs to be done, and how very little has changed in the
intervening years.
We should also recognize that modernizing and enhancing, not
shortchanging, passenger rail is the current trend in Europe and Asia.
These various nations are providing their people a form of efficient
and safe transportation.
Mr. President, as one who helped shepherd through Congress the High
Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, it has been my long-held
belief that passenger rail service is the most fuel-efficient; the
least environmentally disruptive; and ultimately, will be the least
expensive mode of transportation.
Finally, there is another thought here. We accept the idea that
elevated vertical transportation should be free but not horizontal
transportation like the subway because it is horizontal. I can remember
when I was a boy there were buildings in Europe--still some in Europe--
buildings in New York where you put a nickel in order to be transported
up or down. I think this also should be kept in mind.
So for all these reasons, I believe that the money--the subsidy, if
you want to call it that--for Amtrak should be preserved because it is
giving our people service that the citizenry should expect. I thank the
managers of this bill for their very fine efforts, efforts I am pleased
to support. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, it is all very enjoyable to debate and discuss issues
with the Senator from Delaware. And I believe that he makes valid
points. I also hope that we do not spend too much time on this
amendment and others so he will be able to take his taxpayer-subsidized
trip back to Delaware tonight.
Mr. President, I point out that less than one-half of 1 percent of
America's inner-city rail passengers are subsidized by this program. It
has been long recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike that we
need to curtail this ever-increasing subsidy.
As early as 1979, President Carter's Secretary of Transportation,
Brock Adams, acknowledged that. I quote back in 1979.
We can no longer afford to provide disproportionately large
and continually increasing amounts of Federal funds for a
passenger service that is used by less than one-half of 1
percent of the inner city traveling public.
Again, in 1988, the President's Commission on Privatization,
established by President Reagan, recommended, as part of a multiyear
plan to move to privatize Amtrak, that ``Federal subsidies should be
incrementally reduced and a deadline should be set for the Department
of Transportation to decide whether Amtrak or portions of its operation
should be continued.''
Mr. President, again, I would like to see a deadline that is adhered
to. I think when we have a program that began initially in 1971, that
was only supposed to be there for 2 years, and now in the year 1996 we
have a policy of some 4 or 5 years from now, it is time we really got
realistic. If there is some cynicism on the part of some of us about
these dates that continue to slide every 4 or 5 years, I think it is
justified.
Mr. President, the money that is cut out of this appropriation, I
point out again, will be used for aviation safety, rail safety, and
highway safety, which, obviously, have a great claim to limited
taxpayers' funds, greater, I think, than the rail service has been,
which has not been able to obtain self-sufficiency in the last 25
years.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey would yield 1
minute to respond to a point?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Arizona made a point that I think
probably will mischaracterize something. The implication was that the
folks in the inner cities really do not get any subsidy in this area.
My understanding is that in this bill there is $4.4 billion in
subsidy for mass transit systems. Obviously, virtually all of the
cities that have mass transit systems are getting subsidized on an
ongoing basis, and part of this is paid for by folks in Bismarck and
Fargo. That is fine. I support that. But I do not want people listening
to this debate to understand there is not a subsidy for mass transit
because there is a $4.4 billion subsidy.
The point I was making before was that I do not object to deciding as
a public investment we want to retain an Amtrak system that is a
national system. In fact, it still is a national system, but will not
be under the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I
personally make the observation that I think it is a good investment to
make.
I respect the Senator from Arizona, but we disagree on this, because
I happen to think this represents a good investment as part of our
transportation system.
I did want to clear up the point on whether or not mass transit is
subsidized. Of course it is. It is subsidized substantially--by $4.4
billion in this bill alone.
[[Page S9140]]
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain
amendment. It is clear what he is trying to do is kill Amtrak. This is
wrong.
Amtrak is integral in transporting people across this great country
of ours--not just in the Northeast, although the Northeast, which has
horrible problems with traffic and air pollution and everything
connected with it, needs to go to railroads, needs to utilize the
railroads more than it does now for personal transportation.
In addition to that, with the overload on our airplanes, trying to
shuttle back and forth to New York and to Boston, the fast trains,
which this would essentially eliminate, will resolve that horrible
problem, much to the benefit of the people in this Nation.
Amtrak can survive on its own. We are working toward that goal. Over
the last 2 years, Amtrak has restructured itself and is working to be
free of Federal support in 5 years. I think they will make it.
Mr. President, do not kill our national railroad now. Give Amtrak
time to build up the business and let Congress be responsible and pass
the Amtrak authorization bill and move the half-cent gas tax to Amtrak.
We must not eliminate Federal support until these plans are in place,
until they have been given a chance to demonstrate they can work. I am
confident they can.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator McCain's
amendment that would cut capital funding for Amtrak. This funding cut
will cripple the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program and threaten
the viability of passenger rail in this country. It is my understanding
that if the Senate votes in favor of these cuts, it will have far-
reaching effects nationwide.
The reduction in capital could mean the termination of the High Speed
Rail Program that has the potential to revive passenger rail as an
important component of our national transportation system. It will also
impair Amtrak's heavy overhaul and maintenance capabilities--much of
which is done in Delaware's Amtrak shops. Shortchanging maintenance
will contribute to further decline of rolling stock and locomotives,
reducing the quality of service, and discouraging potential passengers
from choosing Amtrak.
This is a formula for failure, not a plan to make Amtrak self-
sufficient or to secure the place of passenger in our country's
transportation system.
Mr. President, we are all working toward an Amtrak which operates
without a Federal operating subsidy, which provides quality service,
and which is financially stable. Amtrak now covers approximately 80
percent of its operating costs with self-generated revenue, up from 48
percent in 1981. Yet we also know that no intercity rail passenger
service anywhere in the world operates without some degree of public
sector financial support.
Investment in all modes of transportation is important, but we have
gone about it in a lopsided way. Purchasing power for Federal highway
programs has increased by 48 percent from 1982 to 1996. It has
increased 78 percent for aviation, but has decreased 46 percent for
passenger rail. In fact, Amtrak currently receives less than 3 percent
of all Federal transportation spending. To attain balance, we must
balance our financial support to all transportation components,
including passenger rail service.
Capital funding is necessary for Amtrak's future. New capital
investments will allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. With new
equipment, Amtrak will attract substantial new ridership with increased
revenues. It currently costs Amtrak $60 million per year to operate and
maintain its old equipment, which frequently breaks down and often
requires parts to be specially made.
As many Members in the Senate are aware, I am working to provide a
dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. The Senate has
overwhelmingly supported my legislation that would give Amtrak one-half
cent for capital expenditures. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able
to pass this legislation into law. However, I will continue to work
hard and make these speeches until this legislation is passed.
Amtrak cannot survive without capital funding. If we do not provide
funding for Amtrak, we will have no other option but to watch Amtrak
collapse. This amendment does not move us in the right direction. If
this Congress wants a national passenger rail system, it will continue
to vote for capital funding for Amtrak.
I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the return of the distinguished
chairman of the committee and the subcommittee. I really do not have
anything more to add to this debate. I would be glad to discuss it
further if the Senator from Oregon desires.
However, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time at any
time that is convenient for the distinguished manager of the bill.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the side of the Senator from New Jersey, 7
minutes 32 seconds; and on the other side, 7 minutes 48 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought I heard the Senator from Arizona yield
back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He made an offer to the Senator from Oregon
that was not responded to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will take such time as remains out
of the time that I have to make a couple of points.
We hear that the subsidy for passenger rail service is an egregious
purpose, something that ought not be done, and we talk about the
subsidy per passenger.
However, we neglect to talk about the fact that there is over $2
billion a year that goes into maintaining FAA's services. That has
nothing to do with the trust fund. That is out of the taxpayers'
pocket--$2 billion a year. Those who are paying into the trust fund by
virtue of a ticket tax, when that is operating, pay into the fund when,
in fact, they may not use a particular routing or particular region
when they pay that tax.
If we start to cut up the country into how much did you pay for how
much service--I think the Senator from Delaware made the point very
clearly when he described the need to subsidize water projects,
irrigation projects, and flood control projects out West. It is a very
divisive approach, I think, to what this country of ours is supposed to
be as a single nation.
Just to remind those who are concerned about what would happen if we
did not have the Amtrak service that is now available--those services
would not be available, I assure you, if we further diminish the
assistance that the Federal Government gives to Amtrak. Yes, the needs
have been miscalculated over the years. Yes, they have grown
substantially. But so has the population. The population of the country
has grown significantly. To no one's surprise, much of that population
growth is in the urban areas where rail is an essential factor.
Here we fail to recognize that passenger rail service is part of a
balanced transportation structure that we need in a society in a
country as large as ours.
Commuter lines in States like Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey all use
Northeast corridor lines that are owned by Amtrak. They have to
function; otherwise, the costs for commuting would increase
substantially, or maybe they would not be able to function altogether.
Mr. President, I hope we will defeat this amendment. I think it is
very short-sighted and neglects to recognize what the needs of this
country are, at a time when we are straining with every mode of
transportation, including aviation, including highways, and including
rail. We are underinvested in transportation infrastructure and we have
to continue to plow ahead, whether we like it or not, if we are to be a
mobile society, operating with as much efficiency as we can.
Mr. President, I note Chairman Hatfield is here on the floor, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator from Arizona indicated to me he would be
willing to yield back his time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am willing to yield back the time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, has the Senator from Arizona yielded
back his time?
[[Page S9141]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. All time is yielded back.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the McCain amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 5132 offered by the Senator from Arizona.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Frahm] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 17, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--17
Ashcroft
Brown
Coverdell
Faircloth
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Helms
Inhofe
Kyl
Mack
McCain
Nickles
Shelby
Smith
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--1
Frahm
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5132) was agreed
to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate be in order.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would just like to report to the
Senate we have a few amendments yet, perhaps about 20, that we have to
dispose of tonight. We will have rollcalls on some of them. There is no
window. We are going to complete them. We had the window this afternoon
for an hour and 10 minutes when Senator Lautenberg and I were ready to
do business and nobody appeared. That was our window. So we will
continue straight through now until we finish.
Mr. President, I would ask now that I may yield to Senator McCain for
2 minutes and then the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. DeWine], has an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for setting a
date certain for us to bring up the important and compelling issues
concerning aviation safety and strengthening airport security.
We know how important this issue is to the American people. I had
intended earlier to bring up some of the provisions of that bill as an
amendment on this appropriations bill, something I do not like to do.
The majority leader has assured us he will bring this up on a date
certain in September, and I believe that is a very important. I know my
colleagues are in agreement with me as to how important it is to bring
up these issues. We have to strengthen airport security. We have to
improve aviation safety in America. It is an obligation we have to all
of our citizens.
I hope in September, when we bring up this issue, we will be able to
act on it quickly. I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to develop a set of amendments under the leadership of the
distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, who
has played a key and vital role in all of this legislation.
Finally, I thank the 17 brave souls who voted with me on the last
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Amendment No. 5133
(Purpose: To provide funds and incentives for closures of rail-highway
crossings)
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr. Lugar,
and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 5133.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IV, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Section 120(c) of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``rail-highway crossing
closure,'' after ``carpooling and vanpooling,''.
(b) Section 130 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Incentive Payments for At-Grade Crossing Closures.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a State
may, from sums available to the State under this section,
make incentive payments to local governments in the State
upon the permanent closure by such governments of public at-
grade rail-way-highway crossings under the jurisdiction of
such governments.
``(2) Incentive payments by railroads.--A State may not
make an incentive payment under paragraph (1) to a local
government with respect to the closure of a crossing unless
the railroad owning the tracks on which the crossing is
located makes an incentive payment to the government with
respect to the closure.
``(3) Amount of state payment.--The amount of the incentive
payment payable to a local government by a State under
paragraph (1) with respect to a crossing may not exceed the
lesser of--
``(A) the amount of the incentive payment paid to the
government with respect to the crossing by the railroad
concerned under paragraph (2); or
``(B) $7,500.
``(4) Use of state payments.--A local government receiving
an incentive payment from a State under paragraph (1) shall
use the amount of the incentive payment for transportation
safety improvements.''.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by myself,
Senator Lugar, and Senator Biden, and it really is a fairly simple
amendment.
First of all, it costs no money.
Second, it gives States more tools, more flexibility to deal with a
very serious problem in this country, and that problem is that each
year we lose over 500 people who are killed in collisions between
automobiles and trains. In fact, the figure last year was 559 people--
559 people died last year in auto-train accidents, 36 of them in my
home State of Ohio.
In preparing this amendment, and having some understanding of the
problem going back to my time as Lieutenant Governor in Ohio when I
worked on this problem, I put together a meeting in my office where we
brought together all the experts in this field. They sat down for 2,
2\1/2\ hours and discussed this. Then they got together again. One of
the ideas they came up with is contained in this amendment.
Mr. President, my amendment is a simple one. It would make America's
railroad crossings a lot safer--500 people are killed each year in
these train-vehicle collisions. Fifty percent of these accidents occur
at crossings that are already equipped with active warning devices--50
percent. So simply adding more warning devices, therefore, is not a
complete solution to the problem.
Some of these railroad crossings are just simply too dangerous. They
are life-threatening. They are not needed, and they ought to be closed.
We all know though from our own experience that people do become
accustomed to taking certain routes and communities get used to certain
traffic patterns. That is why it is sometimes very difficult for
localities to close these crossings, for local officials to make this
decision, even when it is clear on safety grounds that a particular
crossing simply needs to be closed.
Clearly, the local communities need some help, and that is the
purpose of
[[Page S9142]]
this amendment. Again, this idea did not come from me. This idea came
from the safety experts who have looked at this, both in government and
outside of government.
Currently, the Federal Government pays 90 percent of the cost of
closing a railroad highway grade crossing, but other grade crossing
safety projects, such as traffic signs, guard rails and traffic lights,
are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding.
My amendment will make grade crossing closure projects eligible for
that same 100 percent Federal funding. This will help remove the
current incentive against closure projects. Let me emphasize, this is a
State decision that will be made by the State, and that is out of the
same pot of money. No additional funds will be utilized. If the safest
thing to do is to close a very dangerous railroad crossing, localities
should have an incentive to do that.
Let me again point out this amendment does not involve new Federal
money. The CBO says no additional contract authority would be
necessary. The money for this amendment is already allocated for
crossing safety purposes, for the very purpose we are talking about.
All we are trying to do in this amendment, Senator Lugar, Senator Biden
and myself, is to deploy that money in the most rational and effective
way. Again, that decision is being made by the local authorities.
The second part of my amendment provides up to $7,500--again, out of
the same pot of money--to a local highway authority for each crossing
closed. Mr. President, $7,500 is an incentive to that local community
if the State decides that is the best way to spend this money.
Furthermore, the railroad itself that is operating the crossing under
this amendment has to match the money. This means up to $15,000 for a
local community to close a railroad crossing. In other words, it
creates an incentive to get the job done.
Safety does not come about by accident. It comes about when concerned
people exercise the necessary level of prudence and the necessary level
of vigilance. I have been working with the railroads, with the Federal
Railroad Administration and with the Federal Highway Administration on
these issues for some time now, and I believe this amendment embodies a
commonsense approach to this very real issue of railroad safety. Mr.
President, we have worked with the Federal Railroad Administration to
develop this amendment, and the amendment has been endorsed by the
Association of American Railroads.
In conclusion, let me summarize again, this costs no additional
Federal dollars. Every safety expert that we have consulted says this
is the thing to do. It is the most cost-effective way to preserve
lives. We can close these railroad crossings, frankly, at a fraction of
the cost to install the gates and the flashers. They cost anywhere
between $130,00 and $135,000, and it takes some time to get them
installed.
This amendment will provide more flexibility to the States to deal
with this hazard. It has the endorsement of all the safety experts, as
well as Senator Biden, Senator Lugar and myself. And, Mr. President, if
we needed any other incentive to pass this amendment, let me just hold
this chart up. This is a listing for the most immediate year available.
This is 1995: ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Statistics by State.'' I
did not have time to have this blown up, but I am going to read a
couple of these, if I could. It has every State. If any Members want to
see how many fatalities occurred in their home States, they can do
that. South Carolina, just last year, 111 accidents, 61 injuries, 6
fatalities. Looking at the State of California, 191 accidents last
year, 69 injuries, 28 fatalities. We go on and on and on.
This is a very simple amendment. It is no cost to taxpayers and gives
more flexibility to States, to people who have to make the decisions to
spend the finite dollars to try to save lives. I believe this amendment
will save lives, and I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Ohio will
yield for a question?
Mr. DeWINE. I certainly will.
Mr. HATFIELD. As the Senator knows, we have a strict position, known
here, that we do not accept legislation on appropriations unless it is
cleared by the authorizing committee chairman and ranking member. We
have accommodated Senators where they have cleared that with the
authorizing committee, but this is not in our jurisdiction. I am asking
the question as to whether or not the Senator has had clearance from
the Environment and Public Works chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. DeWINE. We do not have any direct clearance. If I could finish my
answer? The reality is, this is the only train that is moving. If we do
not have the opportunity to put it in now, the Senator is well aware it
is not going to happen for months and months and months. It is such a
simple amendment. I have found no one who, on the substance, is opposed
to it. I cannot find anyone opposed to it. That is why we are looking
at this as the opportunity to, frankly, save some lives and give the
local communities the flexibility they need. It is of such a
noncontroversial nature, that is why I am here.
Mr. HATFIELD. I agree the amendment is very meritorious, but it does
not comply with our rules. I will have to move to table this and reject
it as such. I would prefer to have, maybe, the amendment temporarily
set aside until you can confer with our two colleagues who are the
authorizers. If they clear it, we will accept the amendment.
Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to temporarily set aside the
consideration of the amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
Has the Senator made the request to temporarily lay aside his
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I was
distracted for a moment. I would like to be recognized in my own right
to make a few comments about the amendment being offered by the Senator
from Ohio. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor.
What was the suggestion of the managers of the bill? What was the
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. HATFIELD. The request was to temporarily lay aside the amendment
until the Senator from Ohio conferred with the authorizing leadership,
and then to turn to the next amendment to be offered once it is
temporarily laid aside, which is the Exon-Dorgan amendment.
Mr. EXON. The Senator from Ohio has agreed to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. DeWINE. I have agreed to temporarily lay it aside with the
understanding the amendment will continue to pend.
Mr. EXON. I simply ask the Senator from Ohio, I would like to be a
cosponsor of the amendment.
I remind the Senate, and the managers of the bill, this Senator
offered a five-point program last year with regard to grade crossings.
Three of the five were accepted and are now part of the law. The two
things that were not agreed to, basically on that side of the aisle,
last year are now incorporated in the amendment offered by the Senator
from Ohio.
So I congratulate him for his leadership in this area. I simply
remind all we should have done this last year. I hope we can do it this
year in some form. So I thank my friend from Ohio. I am very pleased to
be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is to set the amendment aside. Is
there objection?
Without objection, the Senator from Nebraska is added as a cosponsor.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 5134
(Purpose: To prohibit the Surface Transportation Board from increasing
user fees)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, and Senator Exon. I send the amendment
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment
numbered 5134.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S9143]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On line 12 on page 41 after the semicolon, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this Act or otherwise made available may be
used to increase fees for services in connection with
licensing and related service fees, pursuant to 49 CFR Part
1002, STB Ex Parte No. 542, for services in connection with
rail maximum rate complaints,''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered on
behalf of myself, Senator Conrad and Senator Exon is an amendment that
deals with the fees charged by the Surface Transportation Board for the
filing of a complaint by a shipper, a farmer or a grain elevator that
might feel is necessary to file against a railroad company that is
overcharging.
We have largely deregulated the railroad companies in this country.
We have abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and established
the Surface Transportation Board. The question is, Where does a farmer
or a grain elevator or some other small shipper go when they feel that
the railroad is overcharging them? They file a complaint, under the
current circumstances, with the new Surface Transportation Board.
Previously, when a shipper was to file a complaint, they would be
required to pay a $1,000 fee in order to file a complaint against a
railroad company saying, ``This railroad company is overcharging. I am
complaining and want a hearing and want some facts to be developed, and
I want a judgment about my complaint.'' So they would file a complaint
and pay a $1,000 fee.
The Surface Transportation Board issued a proposal, under the
administration's directive to increase user fees.
The Surface Transportation Board proposed to increase the fees from
$1,000 to $23,000, roughly, for those who file a complaint against a
railroad company.
They are saying that if you are a family farmer or you are a small
grain elevator or machinery and equipment dealer and you have a
complaint against a big railroad company--and most of them are big--in
order to file that complaint, instead of paying a $1,000 fee, we are
going to increase it to a $23,000 fee.
Some of us happen to think that that is way out of line--not just out
of line but way out of line--and we do not believe the Surface
Transportation Board ought to do that.
I have talked to the Chair of the Surface Transportation Board,
someone for whom I have great respect. I think she is doing a good job.
She said, ``Well, we were told that we were going to have to find our
money from fees, so we had to put out a schedule.''
My expectation is they will not come up with those kind of fees in
their final determination. But what we want to make sure of today is,
in an era of deregulation of railroads where you have very large
significant concentrations of economic power, that that economic power
is not wielded against small shippers in a punitive way.
We believe small shippers ought to be able to make a complaint
against a predatory pricing practice on the part of a railroad company
without having to fork over $23,000. All that means is a lot of small
shippers are told, ``You don't have the ability to file a complaint
anymore. There is no way for you to complain against a railroad because
we are pricing you out of existence. You can't afford to complain.''
What this amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself and my
colleagues does is it says:
. . . none of the funds appropriated in this Act or
otherwise made available may be used to increase fees for
services in connection with licensing and related service
fees pursuant to 49 CFR Part 102, STB Ex Parte No. 542, for
services in connection with rail maximum rate complaints.
Very simply, we are saying you cannot increase the fees for small
shippers who are going to make a complaint against the railway
companies. You cannot increase them from $1,000 to $23,000, not from
$1,000 to $13,000. You cannot increase them.
We happen to think in this age where we have deregulated the railroad
companies, where we have a significant concentration of economic power
that it is fundamentally unfair to small shippers, especially as I
mentioned to farmers and grain elevators, to say to them, We have
allowed them to concentrate economic power, and when they overcharge
you, you are going to have to fork over $23,000 if you feel like you
need to complain about it.
Some of us say it is fundamentally unfair. We will not stand for it.
We want the Senate to be on record to say none of those funds will be
used for those fees. There are other fees they can charge. They can
increase them. I am not here complaining about that. That is a decision
they can make, but at least with respect to these fees, with respect to
small shippers who make complaints about these railways, I say let's
freeze these fees and let's not price those folks out of the ability to
make complaints against railway companies who overcharge.
Let me make a final point. I come from a part of the country that has
had some experience with railroads. I come from North Dakota where a
so-called ``prairie fire,'' which was a political fire, began in the
early 1900's. The controversy was about banks and railroads and big
grain millers taking advantage of our farmers. Big interests with large
concentrations of economic power that were taking money from the
pockets of our farmers.
That created a populist prairie fire out in my part of the country
that said, ``We're not going to stand for it.'' Those folks in the
early 1900's would not have stood for this, and we should not stand for
it in 1996 either.
Mr. President, let me yield the floor and have the Senator from
Nebraska speak on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just
offered by my friend and colleague from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for a
very thoughtful amendment that is vitally important if you understand
the peril, or the potential peril, maybe is a better word for it, that
small shippers find themselves in today.
There probably has been no one in the U.S. Senate today who has spent
more time and effort in committee and on the floor with regard to
railroad matters generally, including grade crossing safety. I fought
very hard for the Interstate Commerce Commission. When it was obvious
that was not going to prevail for long, I was one of the leading
proponents of the Surface Transportation Board that was created under
the Department of Transportation.
I simply say, from experience and looking into the future, myself and
others as original cosponsors have had firsthand experience with the
situation that could affect particularly small carriers.
The most important work of the Surface Transportation Board is to
protect consumers from unfair, unjust, and unreasonable rates or
actions by the railroads. I mention specifically captive shippers.
Captive shippers are those who are captive because they have no other
way to move their products or their goods or their livestock or their
grain.
So simply put, what this amendment does is to say that if you are a
small shipper, you cannot be charged as originally suggested in a
preliminary announcement of fees by the Surface Transportation Board.
The Senator from North Dakota touched on this, Mr. President. I
emphasize it a little bit more. If somebody files a complaint against a
railroad, the railroad has a whole stable of attorneys who are willing,
ready, and able to act in their behalf.
Actually, unless we adopt an amendment like this, for all practicable
purposes, if the fees are set too high, that small shipper, that
captive shipper, that grain elevator, that small company out there
could not afford to file a complaint even if he had full justification
for doing so.
So I simply say that railroads need some supervision. There needs to
be, especially for small and captive shippers, the right to appeal when
they think they are being unfairly treated by the railroads. The
Surface Transportation Board is the successor in this area to the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
[[Page S9144]]
I think the Senate and the House should be very careful that when we
talk about increasing fees, we do not allow the Surface Transportation
Board arbitrarily to set fees so high that the small businessmen--
captive shipper, grain elevator, farmer, call it what you will--would
be discouraged from even making a legitimate complaint.
At a time when there is consolidation in the rail sector, rate
oversight by the Surface Transportation Board is the best primary means
to protect rural shippers, and urban shippers, as well, from a possible
loss of competition for the captive shippers. It is time to stop the
annual threat to the consumers of rail transportation.
The Surface Transportation Board is all that stands between small
shippers and captive shippers and the big railroads. I applaud the
Appropriations Committee for rejecting the user-fee-only proposition to
finance the Surface Transportation Board. The Dorgan-Exon, and others,
amendment assures that the rights of rural and urban shippers are not
compromised by unfair, high user fees if they file a complaint with the
Surface Transportation Board.
I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for offering this
amendment. I urge its adoption. I thank the Chair and I yield the
floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. This amendment
addresses a very serious concern that was first raised earlier this
year when a fee schedule was proposed by the Surface Transportation
Board.
These fees that were announced earlier this year by that agency
indicate that sometimes people completely take leave of their senses
here in Washington when they have responsibility over an administrative
function. If there was ever an example of an agency going off a cliff
with respect to a proposal, these fees by the Surface Transportation
Board are a perfect example.
Under the proposed fee schedule from earlier this year, the minimum
filing fee charged rail users complaining of unlawful railroad actions
would have been increased from the current $1,000 to $23,000. Let's
think about a small elevator in my home State of North Dakota. They
have a grievance. Just to be able to file, they would have been
expected to come up with $23,000. Where is the rationale for that? If
you are going to ask people to pony up $23,000 just to file a
complaint, there are not going be many complaints filed. That is for
sure.
The unfortunate thing about this is people do not have an
alternative. If they have not gone through the administrative process,
they cannot go to the courts. And to go through the administrative
process, they are told you have to come up with a $23,000 filing fee.
Let me just go through some of the other filing fees that the Surface
Transportation Board proposed earlier this year. The fee for filing a
formal rate complaint under the so-called stand-alone cost methodology,
guidelines alleging unlawful rate practices by rail carriers, would
have been increased from the current $1,000 to $233,000.
Mr. EXON. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to.
Mr. EXON. With that fee schedule that you just outlined right from
the Surface Transportation Board paper, how many complaints do you
think small businessmen, small elevators, would file out of North
Dakota?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator asks a very good question. I think we could
be quite assured that virtually no one would file, probably no one
would file. I mean, who is going to pony up $23,000 for an unlawful
railroad action case? Who could afford to pay, in the case of a formal
rate complaint alleging unlawful rates under practices by rail
carriers, an increase from $1,000 to--it makes me laugh every time I
say it--an increase from $1,000 to $233,000?
The cost for seeking a regulatory exemption to construct connecting
rail lines would have been increased from the current $3,000 to
$41,700.
I am glad this amendment is being offered. Hopefully, it will send a
message.
I do commend the Appropriations Committee for providing some funding
for the Surface Transportation Board. That is an important provision in
this transportation appropriations bill. The Dorgan amendment simply
ensures that there is no possibility the Surface Transportation Board
will even consider user fees on the scale of those which were discussed
earlier this year.
Mr. EXON. If I might add a comment. It seems to me that if there is
that much money out there to get this job done, we might seize on that
as a means of balancing the Federal budget in 2 years. I thank my
friend from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. He makes a very good
point. Unfortunately, earlier this year the Surface Transportation
Board looked at the budget and the current fee schedule, and somehow
believed the agency could become self-sufficient by just raising fees.
Unfortunately, this proposed fee schedule did not recognize that
agricultural shippers, with legitimate complaints that they need to get
adjudicated, could be completely left out of the process because of the
steep fees which were being proposed.
Nobody would be coming before the Surface Transportation Board, or
virtually no one, because who could afford, just to have a complaint
adjudicated, to pay $23,000, much less $233,000, or to deal with the
question of construction of connecting rail lines, $41,000? I mean,
these are not reasonable.
Hopefully, this amendment will pass and there will be no possibility
of these particular fee increases taking place. I want to thank my
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for offering this
amendment with the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. I am pleased to
join them in this effort. I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I was just asked a series of questions by the manager of
the bill and the ranking member. I thought maybe I could address those
because I think there are some misunderstandings about this.
It is true that the Surface Transportation Board produced a schedule
that said, where as we used to charge $1,000 as a fee in order to make
complaint against a railroad for unfair pricing, if we are required to
raise all of our funds from fees, we will now charge $23,100 instead of
$1,000. If you are complaining about the coal rates, we will go from
$1,000 to $233,000 as a filing fee and so on and so on.
The ranking member made the point to me just now, well, we have
increased appropriations or actually produced appropriations of some
$12 million in this bill for the Surface Transportation Board and,
therefore, they will not have to raise all of this money from fees. It
is absolutely correct.
That $12 million has been appropriated. They will not have to raise
that from fees. They will have to raise several millions of dollars
from fees. The question is, how will they get that several million
dollars? There are a wide range of fees from which to choose. Will they
decide, with respect to those who want to file a complaint against a
railroad company for unfair pricing, that that fee should go from
$1,000 to $2,000, $1,000 to $5,000, $1,000 to $15,000, $1,000 to
$23,000? I do not have the foggiest idea.
My amendment says, it shall go from $1,000 to $1,000. The fee is now
$1,000 and the fee will be $1,000 if you feel like you need to file a
complaint against a railroad company for unfair pricing.
Mr. President, we do not have an Interstate Commerce Commission in
America anymore. I never thought I would mourn its passing, and I am
not sure I do now, because I used to think it was one of the few
agencies in Washington, DC, that had died from the neck up. However,
despite the fact the ICC, in my judgment, was relatively worthless as
an agency, sat around with a giant ink pad and a giant rubber stamp,
and whatever the railroads wanted, they stamped OK. There was a guy
named ``OK Alan'' that was talked about down in a Southern State, the
Governor of a Southern State, because he said OK to everything. It was
the ``OK-ICC Commission.''
I never thought I would mourn its passage, but when we deregulated
the
[[Page S9145]]
railroad industry and people said get rid of the ICC, there was a
discussion that maybe there should be some referee deciding when and if
there are predatory or unfair pricing practices by the railroads, that
maybe the folks who are having their pockets picked by that have some
opportunity to file a complaint.
So the Surface Transportation Board was created. As I mentioned, I
have a fair amount of confidence in the chair of that board, and I do
not believe they would increase rates, as they published, from $1,000
to $23,000. But I will make sure with my amendment that they do not
with respect to complaints against the rails.
I am joined with the Senator from Nebraska and my colleague from
North Dakota and others to say to those who need to file a complaint
against the railroads, they ought to be able to file that complaint
with a filing of $1,000, and it ought not to be doubled, tripled, or
increased 23 times. This amendment says, ``Freeze it where it is.''
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the minority leader,
the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] be added as a cosponsor to
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily
lay aside the Dorgan amendment so we can clear the DeWine amendment
that is being cleared by the authorizers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5133
Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that the DeWine amendment,
which has now been cleared by the authorizers, both the chairman and
the ranking member, now be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5133) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5134, as Modified
(Purpose: To prohibit the Surface Transportation Board from increasing
user fees)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 5134), as modified, is as follows:
On line 12 on page 41 after the semicolon, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this Act or otherwise made available may be
used to increase fees for services in connection with rail
maximum rate complaint pursuant to 49 CFR Part 1002, STB Ex
Parte No. 5424.
Mr. DORGAN. The modification was made necessary in order to reach an
agreement with the authorizing committee. Both the majority and the
minority have agreed with the amendment as it is modified, and I am
told it will be acceptable, then, to the Senator from Oregon and the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge adoption.
Mr. EXON. It would be the same cosponsors?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I say that the modification is
purely technical. The amendment is identical to the amendment I offered
previously, but we rearranged the words because there needed to be a
technical change.
The modification is offered with the same cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified, of the Senator from North Dakota.
The amendment (No. 5134), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5135
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
At the appropriate place add the following:
``Sec. . (a) Applicable Laws.--Section 24301 of Title 49,
United States Code, as amended by Section 504 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
`` `(q) Power Purchases.--The sale of power to Amtrak for
its own use, including operating its electric traction
system, does not constitute a direct sale of electric energy
to an ultimate consumer under section 212(h)(1) of the
Federal Power Act.'
``(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 212(h)(2)(A) of the
Federal Power Act is amended by inserting `Amtrak;' after `a
State or any political subdivision);'.''
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 5135.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment was a consequence of
discussions held in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee among
the staff of the majority with regard to the dilemma surrounding Amtrak
and the high cost of power that Amtrak is subjected to in the Northeast
corridor where most of the rail line is electrified. As a consequence
of the efforts to try and help Amtrak to reduce its costs, this
amendment was suggested by Amtrak.
Mr. President, it is an extraordinary set of circumstances here when
we consider that the potential cost of power wheeled in for the
availability of Amtrak could be as low as 3 cents, yet Amtrak is
currently paying in many cases 6 cents and, in extreme cases, up to 12
cents from a power-producing facility in New York State that is in
bankruptcy. These are the result of State public utility commissions
and the overall regulatory complexity associated with the jurisdiction
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as compared to State public
utility commissions. These need to be examined.
What this amendment does, Mr. President, is to allow the FERC to
order retail wheeling for Amtrak only, something which is currently
prohibited under Federal law. It would exempt, therefore, Amtrak from
the prohibition which prevents them from taking advantage of cheaper
sources of power that would be transmitted from potential out-of-State
power suppliers.
The purpose, again, of this amendment is simply to allow Amtrak to
acquire electric power at a cheaper rate than it is currently paying.
As we all know, Amtrak is not a private company but a quasi-
governmental entity created by an act of Congress in 1970. Its stock is
owned by the Federal Government. Congress mandated its mission and
likewise imposes by Federal law a host of obligations and costs on
Amtrak, costs that no regular private company is burdened with. Yet,
each year Amtrak's losses are made up through a Federal subsidy.
In fiscal year 1996, Amtrak's Federal subsidy was $285 million, thus,
this amendment would result in a savings to Amtrak that translates into
about $20 million a year. That is a savings to the U.S. taxpayer that
subsidizes Amtrak.
What we have done, Mr. President, in Congress is put Amtrak between
the proverbial rock and a hard place. Congress has given Amtrak a
mandate to decrease its reliance on Federal operating support. The
House and Senate Amtrak authorization bills and the budget resolution
proposed to end all operating support of Amtrak in the year 2001. What
are we going to do with that? Are we going to adhere to that? Are we
going to extend it and try and find ways to help Amtrak reduce its
cost? The point is, we have not relieved Amtrak from its statutory
obligation and, at the same time, we are taking away its Federal
operating subsidy.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment not in the expectation that it
is going to be adopted. I offer this amendment to point out the need to
move the
[[Page S9146]]
electric power industry from its current highly regulated, highly
inefficient situation into a fully competitive, deregulated marketplace
so that Amtrak, along with industrial and residential consumers, can
purchase electricity at the lowest possible price. That is what
deregulation is all about.
How we get there from here is a very difficult and complex problem.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I
recognize it, and I have had some conversations, as late as this
evening, with Senator Johnston, who is concerned about the issue as
well. And to the question of how we address it, of course, is an issue
within the jurisdiction of our committee.
The Energy Committee has held three hearings this year on the issue
of competitive change in the electric power industry. We intend to hold
more. We want to assure everybody that we recognize that the electric
industry in this country--a very, very important and significant
industry--is not broke by any means. So it is not a question of fixing
it in the sense of fixing what is not wrong with it. It is more an
effort to try and recognize that by directing more attention to local
and State control, with the assurance that we have the availability of
wheeling coming in to address cost and efficient producers and somehow
try and address that narrow area of what we are going to do to protect
those that have stranded costs. That is the challenge before us.
We have an inequity associated with Amtrak. While there is no
consensus as to the means for how to make the electric power industry
competitive, there is a consensus as to the need for making it
competitive.
So what we have to do is address the inconsistencies associated with
the industry. We want to have competition, which will benefit
consumers--residential consumers, commercial consumers, industrial
consumers and, yes, Amtrak. This amendment is but a small piece of a
much larger puzzle. The Amtrak issue, along with a host of other
electric power issues, such as the privatization of the Federal Power
Marketing Administration, will be the subject of our legislative
interests in the 105th Congress.
Mr. President, while it is my expectation that we will undertake
comprehensive electric deregulation legislation next year, it should
not be taken to mean that we should not proceed this year with Senator
D'Amato's PUHCA reform legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. It has
been ordered reported by the Banking Committee, and the Senate should
take this legislation up at the earliest possible time.
Mr. President, I am going to withdraw the amendment as a consequence
of the recognition that, clearly, this is not the time or the place to
resolve the wheeling issue for Amtrak. But I hope there is now
attention to the inequity associated with Amtrak, and a realization
that we are forcing this entity to purchase power far beyond the
competitive marketplace that exists, which puts an unfair and
unrealistic burden and a responsibility right back with us in the
realization that it is the taxpayers that are subsidizing this quasi-
government entity, or its shortfall, when indeed there are
opportunities out there for Amtrak to buy power at a competitive rate
and reduce the Federal subsidy by as much as $20 million a year. And
current savings can easily be identified as a consequence of prevailing
rates that are in existence at this time. Unless anybody cares to talk
on the amendment, or ask me questions, I am prepared to withdraw the
amendment at this time. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. HATFIELD. There was a Senator who was planning to be here, but he
is not able to be here. I yield to the Senator to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am checking on some other matters
here. But I believe that it is now the Democratic side of the aisle
that is going to offer an amendment. We are alternating back and forth.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we are attempting to do is to get
to that finite list, and that is in the process now.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5136
(Purpose: To provide for loan guarantees under the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Pressler and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Pressler,
for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Exon, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. Boxer,
proposes an amendment numbered 5136.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 2, strike ``$4,158,000'' and insert
``$3,000,000''.
On page 5, line 17, strike ``$132,499,000'' and insert
``$129,5000,000''.
On page 26, line 8, strike ``1997.'' and insert ``1997,
except for up to $75,000,000 in loan guarantee commitments
during such fiscal year (and $4,158,000 is hereby made
available for the cost of such loan guarantee
commitments).''.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple and straight
forward. It would provide funding for the section 511 railroad loan
guarantee program to enable needed rail infrastructure and safety
improvements. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort by
Senators Lott, Snowe, Exon, and Wyden.
Over the years, Congress has often recognized the importance of
Federal funding assistance for rail infrastructure projects. Federal
appropriations through such programs as the section 511 program and the
Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program have enabled the
continuation of rail service for many communities that have been on the
brink of losing service. I strongly support initiatives to promote rail
infrastructure rehabilitation.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which
I chair, has reported legislation to permanently authorize the LRFA
Program. To date, this authorizing legislation, S. 1318, the Amtrak and
Local Rail Revitalization Act, has not been considered by the full
Senate. Because I recognize the concerns of some of my colleagues about
funding certain expired programs, my amendment only proposes funding
for the permanently authorized section 511 program. However, I will
continue to support LRFA reauthorization and funding in future years.
Mr. President, I want to point out the House-passed Department of
Transportation appropriations bill includes $58.86 million for title
V--section 505--railroad loans. At first glance, I am pleased the House
recognizes the importance of funding assistance for freight rail
infrastructure. Yet, I am concerned because the entire amount has been
earmarked for only one project in California. Many equally important
projects would be shut out of the process by the House-passed bill.
This clearly ignores the national need for rail rehabilitation on light
density rail projects throughout our country. It also is important to
note the House approved funding has been allocated to an expired
Federal loan program.
My amendment would provide $4.158 million for section 511 loan
guarantees. This would permit a loan level of up to $75 million for
many legitimate rail projects across our Nation. Further, my amendment
includes offsets for this funding from certain administrative
functions. I believe basic infrastructure investment would be a better
use of scarce Federal dollars.
Mr. President, Federal involvement, while limited, would advance
track and bridge projects planned in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Oregon, and South Dakota, just to name a few. In turn, rail safety and
economic opportunity for these and hundreds of other communities would
be promoted. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment offsets $4.1 million for
the
[[Page S9147]]
Federal Rail Administration. There is a loan program where $4.1 million
can, in effect, leverage $75 million in guaranteed loans. This is
basically geared for some of the rail problems in the smaller areas, or
the less populated areas.
It has been cleared on both sides. It is budget neutral. As I say, it
has been offset for that transfer of moneys.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the manager yield for a moment?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. There seems to be a question about clearance on our
side, if we can review that for a couple of minutes. I would be happy
to then discuss it.
Mr. HATFIELD. I ask that we temporarily set aside Senator Pressler's
amendment, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now call up again the Pressler
amendment and ask unanimous consent that Senators Wyden, Exon, Harkin,
and Boxer be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides of the aisle. Therefore, I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5136) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5137
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send on behalf of Senator Kempthorne
an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Kempthorne,
proposes an amendment numbered 5137.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 47 line 13 of H.R. 3675, strike ``$5,000,000'' and
insert ``$15,000,000''.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment by Senator
Kempthorne that is budget neutral. It moves $5 million up to $15
million for national trail rehabilitation, which particularly suffered
great damage in the Pacific Northwest during the floods of recent
times. It has been cleared on both sides.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5137) was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5138
(Purpose: To prohibit the issuance, implementation, or enforcement of
certain regulations relating to fats, oils, and greases)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of Senator
Pressler to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Pressler,
for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Lott, Mr. Bond,
and Mr. Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 5138.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . LIMITATION ON FUNDS USED TO ENFORCE REGULATIONS
REGARDING ANIMAL FATS AND VEGETABLE OILS.
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by
the Coast Guard to issue, implement, or enforce a regulation
or to establish an interpretation or guideline under the
Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (Public Law 104-55) or the
amendments made by that Act does not recognize and provide
for, with respect to fats, oils, and greases (as described in
that Act or the amendments made by that Act) differences in--
(1) physical, chemical, biological, and other relevant
properties; and
(2) environmental effects.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, earlier this year Congress passed the
Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. That measure which became Public Law
104-55 was long overdue.
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act addresses how Federal agencies
regulate the shipment of edible oils, as compared with toxic oils. They
require that agencies make a distinction between these two kinds of
oils. This is extremely important to U.S. agricultural exports. Without
Public Law 104-55, farmers faced a potential loss in agricultural
exports and diminished farm income.
The law is simple and very straight-forward. Unfortunately, the Coast
Guard continues to issue regulations that do not comply with Public Law
104-55. The Coast Guard has issued regulations that do not provide
relief to the oilseed industry due to the differentiation between
shipments of edible oilseeds and shipments of toxic oils, such as
petroleum.
Mr. President, the kind of enforcement found in the Coast Guard
regulations was never congressional intent. The amendment that I, and
Senators Harkin, Grassley, Lott, and Bond are offering today would
prevent the Coast Guard from using funds to issue, implement, or
enforce regulations or establish an interpretation or guideline that do
not differentiate animal fats and vegetable oils from toxic oils. This
amendment does not change the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as it relates
to toxic oils.
Without action, the Coast Guard regulations could inadvertently
diminish U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, existing regulations
could have a chilling effect on the development of new crops and new
uses of crop production.
Farm exports are at all time highs. Future exports are expected to
stay at record levels. The future for oilseeds is equally bright.
However, current Coast Guard regulations could work against this
progress. It has become clearly evident that existing regulations would
seriously impact exports of U.S. agricultural commodities, especially
vegetable oils and animal fats.
Unless we pass this amendment, U.S. animal fat and vegetable oil
industries would be faced with lost export sales. Public Law 104-55 put
common sense into Federal regulations regarding the shipment of animal
fats and vegetable oils. The winners out of all this are our farmers
and ranchers. Unfortunately, we have to pass this amendment to make
sure that the Coast Guard abides by Federal law and congressional
intent on this matter. I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is an amendment, too, that has been
cleared on both sides. It is an instruction, in effect, to the Coast
Guard that as it continues its work on regulations of toxic materials,
it make a differentiation between shipments of edible oilseeds and
shipments of toxic oils, such as petroleum.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5138) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5139
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send on behalf of Senators Gorton and
Baucus an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S9148]]
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Gorton, for
himself and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 5139.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
Sec. . (a) In cases where an emergency ocean condition
causes erosion of a bank protecting a scenic highway or
byway, FY 1996 or FY 1997 Federal Highway Administration
Emergency Relief funds can be used to halt the erosion and
stabilize the bank if such action is necessary to protect the
highway from imminent failure and is less expensive than
highway relocation;
(b) In cases where an emergency condition causes inundation
of a roadway or saturation of the subgrade with further
erosion due to abnormal freeze/thaw cycles and damage caused
by traffic, FY 1996 or FY 1997 Federal Highway Administration
Emergency Relief funds can be used to repair such roadway.
(c) Not more than $8 million in Federal Highway
Administration Emergency Relief funds may be used for each of
the conditions referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b).
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, along the southwest coast of Washington
State, Highway 105 runs adjacent to Willapa Bay from Raymond to
Aberdeen and provides an alternative route to Highway 101. While this
route serves as the only direct access for residents of the Tokeland
Peninsula and the Shoalwater Indian Reservation, it also acts as a dike
protecting several cranberry bogs, a vital local industry, from
saltwater inundation.
Unfortunately, the embankment supporting Highway 105 has eroded away
under the pressure of the unstable forces in Willapa Bay. Unless
something is done, preliminary engineering studies indicate that under
existing conditions, the road will be washed into Willapa Bay, sometime
within the next 2 years. This timeline would obviously be moved up if
any type of storm hits the Washington coast later this winter. Water,
telecommunications, and power utilities located within the highway
right-of-way would also be severed if the highway is destroyed.
If no action is taken to remedy this problem, the estimated loss of
public facilities, cranberry bogs, jobs and economic impacts is $82
million, not including additional socioeconomic impacts. An additional
$40 million from the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief
funds would also be required to relocate a new Highway 105.
A more appropriate and financially efficient alternative, in my
opinion, would be to correct this problem before it becomes a reality.
While diagnosing the problem, preliminary engineering studies also
indicated that the erosion could be slowed considerably by dredging a
relief channel in Willapa Bay, which would alter the flow of water that
is currently undercutting the highway embankment.
Officials from the Washington State Department of Transportation are
currently working with representatives from the affected communities to
resolve this matter, however, funding continues to be the major
obstacle. This prevention project, including both engineering and
actual construction costs, would cost $10 million--$8 million from the
Federal Highway Administration and $2 million in State and local
matching funds.
I am aware that Congress no longer earmarks money in the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) account of the Transportation
appropriations bill, and therefore, I believe that the only appropriate
funding available is possibly the FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) fund.
While I recognize that this fund is traditionally dedicated to
repairing Federal highways once a disaster has occurred, it seems that
common sense dictates using $8 million to prevent a washout rather than
spending $40 million to replace the road in less than 2 years.
I have been working with officials from the Federal Highway
Administration, and they are aware of the pending road failure. While
they support participating in this prevention project, they believe
that legislative authority must be given to allow ER funds to be used
in this manner. For that reason, my amendment provides legislative
language in this bill that authorizes the Federal Highway
Administration to use up to $8 million in Emergency Relief funds in
order to prevent complete loss of the existing Highway 105.
By allowing these funds to be used in this manner, I estimate that
the Federal Government will save approximately $30 million in future
highway relocation funds, while also protecting the fragile environment
and economy of Pacific County in Washington State.
In closing, let me thank Chairman Hatfield for his consideration of
this matter. Let me also applaud the efforts of the officials in
Pacific County, as well as other individuals in the Washington State
who have worked so carefully to ensure that this potential disaster is
averted.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this provides for definition of
emergency funding that can be used to relieve the situation in both
Montana and Washington State. It has been cleared on both sides. It is
budget neutral.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that, as the
distinguished chairman has said, has been cleared by both sides. It is
an important amendment to the State of Washington and, indeed, to
Senator Baucus as well. It is a good amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, essentially following up, I thank the
managers for the amendment. There was a natural catastrophe in the
State of Montana due to abnormal weather. This amendment helps that
situation.
I thank the Senators.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have to reserve the right to object
until we clear a matter here that, frankly, raises concerns. So I am
sorry to say it, but we do have to take a couple of minutes to check
this. Therefore, unless there is somebody else who we are going to go
to, I would note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. HATFIELD. I apologize. I was told that it was cleared on both
sides, I say to my comanager.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, let me return to the Gorton-Baucus
amendment we were discussing a little bit earlier. We now have the
clearance on the Democratic side, so I urge the adoption of that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5139) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have an inquiry of the committee
chairman, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. If the chairman will recall, the
committee, at its meeting of July 16, included language in the
Committee Report offered by the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray].
This language concerned significant costs incurred by the mid-Columbia
hydroelectric projects associated with fish and wildlife mitigation due
to water releases from upstream Federal facilities and how the impacts
of such costs to the mid-Columbia projects could be offset. My question
is this: Should no all upstream project owners incurring the same
costs, from the same water releases, be treated the same as the mid-
Columbia project owners? For example, the Montana Power Co. incurs the
same costs at their Kerr project at Flathead Lake and Thompson Falls
project on the Clark Fork River due to the large releases from the
Federal Hungry Horse project. The Washington Water Power Co. incurs the
same costs at their Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge projects on the
Clark Fork River due to these same releases from the federally owned
Hungry Horse project. Does the committee also urge the BPA to enter
into the same equitable energy exchange with the Montana Power Co. and
the Washington Water Power Co.? Their problems with these Federal water
releases are the same as those of the mid-Columbia project owners.
[[Page S9149]]
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Montana. My answer is that,
``yes'', all projects incurring the same impacts from the Federal water
releases associated with fish and wildlife mitigation should be treated
the same. That provision in the report urges BPA to enter into
equitable energy exchange agreements. Moreover, such agreements should
not increase costs for BPA.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Oregon, my constituents will be
very pleased. Let us hope that Bonneville will faithfully follow the
committee's urging on this matter.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we are in sight of the goal line
on this bill. If Members have amendments yet pending or have registered
in their respective Cloakrooms an intention to offer an amendment by
the terms relevant or whatever else, we would like to have them come
now because we are down to the last handful of amendments and then
final passage.
I do not anticipate any votes on the remaining amendments. I do not
think they are that controversial, but I am just making a judgment. We
are inquiring as to the leadership's view about putting the final
passage vote over until tomorrow to relieve other Senators who are not
involved in the amendment process. As soon as we get that information,
I will relay it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 5140
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Institute of Railroad Safety)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment
numbered 5140.
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
SEC. . THE RAILROAD SAFETY INSTITUTE.
Of the money available to the Federal Rail Administration
up to $500,000 shall be made available to establish and
operate the Institute for Railroad Safety as authorized by
the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this is something that the Senate approved
last year. It is a very important matter with regard to railroad
safety. The matter has been cleared on both sides, I believe. I urge
its adoption.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
The amendment (No. 5140) was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers of the bill.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we are down now to the last
three or four amendments. I hope the Senators who have those
amendments--I could enumerate the Senators by name, but I do not think
I want to do that at this point--at least will have the courtesy to
call the floor and tell us whether they are going to offer their
amendments or not. Is that asking too much? Please, please, make it a
little easier to complete our business here.
To the Senators who put a place hold on amendments to the respective
cloakrooms, at least let us know whether you plan to do it or not. We
have contacted some Senators. They say, ``Oh, I'm not going to offer
that after all,'' but we have not been informed. I think everybody's
mother taught them better manners. So much for my lecture. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________