[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.

                          ____________________