[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9280-S9288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
Mr. COHEN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. 5146
(Purpose: To prevent the Department of Transportation from penalizing
Maine or New Hampshire for non-compliance with federal vehicle weight
limitations)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Snowe, Senator
Smith, and Senator Gregg, 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 Maine [Mr. Cohen], for himself, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered
5146.
Mr. COHEN. 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:
Insert at the appropriate place:
No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to levy
penalties prior to September 1, 1997 on the States of Maine
or New Hampshire based on non-compliance with federal vehicle
weight limitations.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that pertains to the
States of Maine and New Hampshire, dealing with weight limit for
trucks.
We have worked in close conjunction with the Senator from New Jersey,
the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from Rhode Island. They have
agreed that the amendment should be adopted. It would defer imposition
of penalties or the use of funds to impose penalties prior to September
1, 1997.
That is acceptable to both sides.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think this is a good solution to a
difficult problem. I commend the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine
for their cooperation here. We accept it on this side.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the amendment has been one of long
standing on our list. I am happy to be able to dispose of it.
It has been cleared, as indicated by the Senator from Maine, by the
authorizing committees, by the ranking member, as well as the chairman
of the authorizing committee, and has been cleared by the two managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5146) 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.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 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. GRAMM. 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. 5147 to Amendment No. 5141
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 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 Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself, Mr. Bond,
Mr. Coats, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Levin, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 5147 to
Amendment No. 5141.
Mr. GRAMM. 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 the amendment, add the following:
Sec. . Prior to September 30, 1996, the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a
review of the reporting of excise tax data by the Department
of the Treasury to the Department of Transportation for
fiscal year 1994 and its impact on the allocation of Federal-
aid highways.
If the President certifies that all of the following
conditions are met:
1. A significant error was made by Treasury in its estimate
of Highway Trust Fund revenues collected in fiscal year 1994;
2. The error is fundamentally different from errors
routinely made in such estimates in the past;
3. The error is significant enough to justify that fiscal
year 1997 apportionments and allocations of Highway Trust
Funds be adjusted; and finds that the provision in B
appropriately corrects these deficiencies, then subsection B
will be operative.
[[Page S9281]]
(b) Calculation of Federal-Aid Highway Apportionments and
Allocations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for
fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of Transportation shall
determine the Federal-aid highway apportionments and
allocations to a State without regard to the approximately
$1,596,000,000 credit to the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the mass Transit Account) of estimated taxes paid by States
that was made by the Secretary of the Treasury for fiscal
year 1995 in correction of an accounting error made in fiscal
year 1994.
(2) Adjustments for effects in 1996.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall, for each State--
(A) determine whether the State would have been apportioned
and allocated an increased or decreased amount for Federal-
aid highways for fiscal year 1996 if the accounting error
referred to in paragraph (1) had not been made (which
determination shall take into account the effects of section
1003(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 1921)); and
(B) after apportionments and allocations are determined in
accordance with paragraph (1)--
(i) adjust the amount apportioned and allocated to the
State for Federal-aid highways for fiscal year 1997 by the
amount of the increase or decrease; and
(ii) adjust accordingly the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid highways distributed to the State under this Act.
(3) No effect on 1996 distributions.--Nothing in this
section shall affect any apportionment, allocation, or
distribution of obligation limitation, or reduction thereof,
to a State for Federal-aid highways for fiscal year 1996.
(4) Effective date.--This section shall take effect on
September 30, 1996.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we have put together a good
compromise here. It sets up three conditions that have to be met. It
mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
Transportation will look at the issue, which has been raised by our
colleague from Montana, and if they make three findings concerning its
significance--if the President, based on their study, makes those three
findings, then the provision of the Senator from Montana will be
offered in the bill. The Senator from Montana has agreed to this
amendment. I thank him for working with us on this.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an accommodation to allow us to
proceed with the bill. I think it meets the objective of the Senator
from Texas, and as to another look at the degree to which there is an
accounting clerical error, it is also significant. It is my view that
it is. It is altogether appropriate that we crafted the amendment in a
way so that the Senators who were concerned about this issue are better
reassured that this error was, in fact, made.
Second, it accommodates our interests because it is quite clear that
an error was made, and I feel quite confident that the administration,
in reexamining this, will make the proper certification. Nevertheless,
it helps us get a little better record and a better sense of what
actually did happen here. That suits the interests of all Senators all
the way around.
I thank my colleague from Texas for helping craft this amendment. I
urge its adoption.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think it is also important to understand
why some of us are so sensitive on issues like this. Coming from a
donor State, a State that over the years has consistently contributed
substantially more to the highway trust fund than it receives back, we
are sensitive about any changes in formulas that result in a further
loss of funds to our State.
Now, it appears that a technical error was made and not a formula
change. The resulting formula change corrects that area rather than
being a formula designed to benefit some States at the expense of
others. I think a number of us who come from those donor States--and 16
of the 19 States affected here that lose money are donor States--felt
that we needed a certification as to the validity of that particular
technical error and the fact that this proposal by the Senator from
Montana corrects that error in the correct fashion. So the
certification here will allow us to receive that information.
I think it will leave us with some feeling that we are adopting the
right procedures here in terms of certifying the accuracy of this.
So I thank the Senator from Montana for his willingness to work with
us. I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for his ability to
discern and take a complex issue and put it into understandable
amendment form in a fairly short amount of time. I thank him for his
efforts.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me also thank the Senator from Texas,
the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Montana, and others for
working on the second-degree amendment.
I have a question of the Senator from Texas.
Does the second-degree amendment make any change in the underlying
formula?
Mr. GRAMM. No.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me add one comment and one thought to what the Senator
from Indiana said. All but three or four of the States which would lose
money if this allocation were made according to the amendment are
States which already are ahead of the game. They are donee States--
three or four. Those of us that are donor States, so-called, there are
20 of us. When we look at this kind of amendment and see that, it
obviously makes us somewhat skeptical. Again, most of the States by far
that would be on the giving end are the same States that already are,
under the formula, on the giving end. That may be a coincidence. It may
be that the alleged error happened to work out that way.
But I want to join the Senator from Indiana in expressing the
sensitivity of the States that already give much more than they get
back under the formula.
My question to the Senator from Texas is this: Can he state for the
Record what those three findings are?
Mr. GRAMM. Let me get back the copy of the amendment.
The three findings are--let me make it clear because I want to be
certain, given what the Senator from Indiana said, we are not making
the judgment here of whether or not an error was made. It is my belief
that probably is not the case, as the Senator from Montana believes
that it was the case. We are setting up objective criteria to have a
judgment, so we are not prejudging that based on anything we say here.
Let me just read it.
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
Transportation shall conduct a review of the reporting of
excise tax data by the Department of Treasury to the
Department of Transportation for FY '94 and its impact on the
allocation of Federal aid highways.
If the President certificates that all of the following
conditions are met:
1. A significant error was made by Treasury in its estimate
of highway trust fund revenues collected in FY '94;
2. The error is fundamentally different from errors
routinely made in such estimates in the past;
3. The error is significant enough to justify that FY '97
apportionments and allocations of highway trust funds be
adjusted; and finds that provisions in B--
That is the Baucus amendment.
appropriately corrects these deficiencies, then subsection
B--
Which is the Baucus amendment.
will be operative.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to that
second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask on behalf of the Senator from
Virginia, Senator Warner, that he be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join in thanking my colleague from Montana
for his willingness to work with us on this amendment.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would also like to add my name as a
cosponsor to the Gramm amendment, if I am not already on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on
agreeing to the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Texas.
The amendment (No. 5147) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the underlying Baucus
amendment, the first-degree amendment.
The amendment (No. 5141) 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.
[[Page S9282]]
Shiloh Interchange
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the importance of
the Shiloh Interchange in Billings, MT.
ISTEA authorized this project for $11 million. However, since that
authorization the cost of the project has increased by an additional $3
million. The Senator from Oregon is aware of the request I have made to
include an additional $3 million for this project.
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, you have requested additional funds for this
project. However, criteria established in the One-hundred-and-fourth
Congress by the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee of the House
precludes me from being able to accommodate the Senator from Montana's
request.
The subcommittee has an ironclad rule that no highway projects which
are not authorized be included for funding under the appropriations
bill. In addition, no increases above the authorized levels will be
included. Given the level of single-purpose projects included in ISTEA
the ability of the Appropriations Committee to accomodate the Senator's
request has been severely reduced, and such adjustments need to be made
in the authorizing legislation.
Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the Chairman's clarification and
consideration. Have any non-authorized levels for highway projects been
included in either the FY96 law or the current bill being considered by
the Senate?
Mr. HATFIELD. No, there are no increases above the authorized level
in the fiscal year 1996 act or the fiscal year 1997 bill currently
under consideration.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman, and I yield the floor.
Surface Transportation Board
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we focus upon the Transportation budget
for the upcoming fiscal year, I would like to discuss with you a number
of points regarding the Surface Transportation Board [STB] in light of
the ICC Termination Act.
The statutorily mandated time frames have been complied with in the
latest merger.
The STB should assign a priority to the handling of old cases. For
example, those cases pending more than 3 or 4 years before the
effective date of the ICC Termination Act. In addition, the STB's own
release as to its recent public vote in the Union Pacific/Southern
Pacific merger, it was indicated that considerable weight was given to
the managerial judgment of the applicants. Since that application had
been pending prior to the effective date of the ICC Termination Act,
similar treatment should be given to the other long-pending cases.
The STB's policy should be based on the widest perspective as to
railroad proposals, be they mergers, constructions, line extensions, or
rates, that will benefit area-wide economies in addition to the
applicants themselves. Also, the Board should encourage rail proposals
compatible with the requirements of appropriate environmental laws and
should continue its policy of promoting competition in rail
transportation which I believe will benefit the consumer.
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator's points are well-taken. Long-pending cases
of this type should be decided promptly. Such action would be
particularly warranted with rail proposals that will benefit area-wide
economies, promote competition, or foster the objectives of our
environmental laws. I would hope that such public interest
considerations would merit early resolution.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chairman.
Michigan Transit projects in the Transportation Appropriations bill,
fiscal year 1997
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan and I would like
to join the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee in a brief colloquy regarding Michigan transit projects in
the bill before the Senate.
We are seeking to resolve the differences between the House and
Senate Appropriations Committee reports on Transportation
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 that relate to section 3 bus and
bus facility funding for Michigan. Hopefully, the proposal from the
Michigan Department of Transportation, as embodied in the chart below,
can be useful to the conference committee when it meets. I ask
unanimous consent that the chart be inserted into the record following
our discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEVIN. We have sent the chart to the Michigan House Members whose
districts are affected. Because of the short time, explicit support for
this arrangement has not been received from all of them. However, this
distribution appears to be a fair compromise between the House and the
Senate committees report language. Barring any significant objection
from Michigan's House Members, I urge the conferees to retain the total
Senate funding level of $20 million provided for section 3 transit
projects and accommodate the distribution in the chart.
I would hope that the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee would do his utmost to preserve the Senate
level in conference. As the Senator from Oregon is aware, his State is
a donor State like Michigan, and as such, receives less than an even
return on the gas taxes contributed into the Highway Trust Fund, from
which transit funds are derived. Though that return was improved by
ISTEA for highways, States like Michigan, and I suspect Oregon,
continue to be significant donor States on transit projects. This
formula matter must be addressed when Congress next takes up
reauthorization of ISTEA.
Mr. HATFIELD. I appreciate the interest of the Senators and their
input in helping to recommend a resolution of the differences between
the House and Senate report language on transit projects in Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I fully support the remarks of my fellow Michigan
Senator regarding the unfair distribution of transit funds, and how the
Senate must insist on the higher total funding level of $20 million for
the State of Michigan. However, I wish to further elaborate on the
distribution of these funds within the State of Michigan.
The Michigan Department of Transportation has provided our offices
with a project by project breakdown of this distribution, which Senator
Levin has introduced. Per the fiscal year 1996 Transportation
Appropriations Conference report, the full $1.23 million final project
funding is recommended for the Lansing Intermodal Facility.
Furthermore, we, in coordination with the Michigan Department of
Transportation [MDOT], recommend that at least $1.8 million be
appropriated for the Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority, and at least
$900,000 to the Kalamazoo Transit Authority for buses and an intermodal
facility. Finally, MDOT believes that as a start-up project, no more
than $764,000 is needed for the Dearborn Intermodal Facility. No more
than the remaining $7.13 million, in our coordinated opinion with MDOT,
should be appropriated to MDOT for statewide distribution. There are
other projects enumerated in the MDOT proposal, which melds the House
and Senate marks, which we also believe deserve the designated level of
support.
Mr. President, I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee whether he cares to comment on this proposal?
Mr. HATFIELD. Considering the extensive discussions I know the two
Senators from Michigan have conducted with their State and local
governments over this proposal, I wish to assure both Senators that I
will make every effort to ensure their proposal is given full
consideration in conference discussions with the House.
Exhibit 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit agency Description Federal funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lansing........................... Facility............ $1,230,000
SMART............................. Buses and facility.. 1,800,000
GRATA............................. Facility............ 1,800,000
Flint............................. Facility............ 1,800,000
Kalkaska.......................... Facility............ 576,000
Kalamazoo......................... Buses and facility.. 900,000
DDOT.............................. Buses and facility.. 2,000,000
Dearborn.......................... Intermodal facility. 764,000
Detroit........................... Intermodal facility. 2,000,000
-------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... .................... 12,870,000
=====================================
Total....................... .................... 20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
advanced technology bus
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the esteemed chairman
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, if he would
yield to a question regarding the transportation appropriations bill.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I first want to personally praise the
distinguished chairman for this appropriations bill
[[Page S9283]]
which does so much to enhance the safety and infrastructure investment
in our Nation's transportation systems. I know the Senator is a long-
time supporter of renewable energy technologies and transportation
which uses clean fuels that preserve air quality in our Nation's
cities.
I am particularly pleased at the committee's decision to approve the
President's request for funding the Advanced Technology Transit Bus
[ATTB]. This project, under development in Los Angeles, uses the
expertise of our defense aerospace industry to build a next-generation
transit bus that will run on a variety of clean fuels, will provide
considerable maintenance savings to our transit agencies and will
provide conveniences for disabled passengers.
The committee included by request for $13.1 million in bus
discretionary funding to deploy five bus prototypes for transit
agencies participating in the project across the country. The President
had also requested $6.5 million in his budget to complete the research
program under the National Planning and Research budget of the Federal
Transit Administration. The committee fully funded the President's
request for Transit Planning and Research, but did not specifically
refer to the Advanced Technology Transit Bus. As the chairman knows,
the prototype development will be dependent on the completion of the
research phase.
I ask the chairman whether the Transportation Appropriations
committee report excludes support for the ATTB research funding? In
addition, since fuel cell technology is one of the propulsion systems
proposed for the ATTB, would some funding for the Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Program also be available to the ATTB project?
Mr. HATFIELD. I assure my colleague from California that the
committee report does not mean the committee does not support research
funding for the ATTB. I point out that the report also states that the
committee has not earmarked projects mentioned in the House report that
are not listed in this report. This action is taken without prejudice
to final decisions on project funding that will be made in conference.
The fuel cell component of the ATTB is an important part of the
project, and I will make every effort to ensure that it is considered
for funding.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his support for the research and
deployment of the Advanced Technology Transit Bus.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the
chairman of the committee to clarify the subcommittee's intent with
respect to the committee report language relating to the BART-SFO
extension.
Specifically, I would like to address the stipulation contained in
the committee report that would prevent the Federal Transit
Administration from entering into a full funding grant agreement for
the BART-SFO extension until all litigation regarding the project has
been resolved. I have very strong concerns that this requirement could
result in indefinite delays in the project. Further, I understand
Secretary Pena, Governor Wilson, and the Federal Transit Administration
[FTA] share these same concerns.
I understand it is not the chairman's intent with this report
language to kill this project. Further, the chairman does not intend to
impose any restrictions on the BART-SFO extension that have not
previously been demanded of this and other transit projects seeking
full funding grant agreements from the FTA.
I have a July 30 letter from Secretary Pena stating that the language
contained in the committee report could encourage lawsuits and further
that he would prefer not to see this language included. I understand
the chairman does not intend to encourage frivolous lawsuits with this
language, and further, I understand in speaking with the chairman that
I can be assured this committee report language will be revised during
the conference negotiations with the House to reflect the chairman's
intent to move ahead with this project.
Mr. HATFIELD. That is my understanding.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask the President if the chairman would yield to
another question.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to yield to the senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. We appreciate the chairman's past support for this
project and knows he understands the value of providing key connections
for transit with other modes of travel, such as airports. We also
appreciate his concerns over local participation in the decision-making
for such a project. We would like to remind the chairman that this
project has been on the local ballots and approved by our voters on
three previous occasions. It enjoys wide community support. We
understand from the county counsel of San Mateo County that as of July
16, 1996, any new initiative petition would be too late to qualify for
the November 1996 ballot.
Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee report language
will not necessitate another vote in 1996 if the time for qualifying
such initiative has expired?
Mr. HATFIELD. That is my understanding. I thank the Senators for
bringing their concerns to me.
digital brite radar indicator tower equipment (dbrite) at the
gainesville-alachua regional airport
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman in a
brief colloquy on critical issues affecting the Gainesville-Alachua
Regional Airport and the State of Florida.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the
Senator from Florida on this matter.
Mr. MACK. I would first like to thank the Chairman for his leadership
and the fine work of his subcommittee in keeping the highways, railways
and airways of this Nation safe and effective in meeting the
transportation needs of our citizens.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank my friend and colleague.
Mr. MACK. I believe you are aware, Mr. Chairman, of the situation
confronting the Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport in their effort to
obtain a radar upgrade and the installation of a DBRITE system.
Gainesville was one of four airports specified by Congress in the
reports accompanying the fiscal year 1988 and fiscal year 1990
Transportation appropriation bills to receive radar upgrades. To date,
all but Gainesville have received radar upgrades. I find it very
frustrating that the FAA has not fully implemented the direction in
these reports. At the time the FAA requested the DBRITE system, they
considered it a crucial safety factor for air traffic utilizing the
Ocala, Gainesville, and north Florida region. Now, as a contract tower
with 35 percent less manpower, this system appears even more essential.
The DBRITE system would provide local controllers with real time
pictures of all air traffic in the North Central Region, complementing
the capacities and coverage of Jacksonsville Airport.
I noted this year's Transportation Appropriations Committee Report
contains language encouraging the FAA to honor prior commitments.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, as it has now been almost 8 years since
Congress allocated funds for Gainesville's DBRITE system, I would
expect the FAA to take heed of this language and provide this much
needed system to Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I can sympathize with the frustration
expressed by the junior Senator from Florida on behalf of the
Gainesville/Ocala communities and regional airport. If the FAA had
recognized a legitimate need which still exists, I certainly think it
appropriate for the FAA to move forward in the delivery of the DBRITE
system for the Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as an additional matter, I would like to
bring to the chairman's attention another problem confronting the
Gainesville-Alachua Regional Airport Authority and the surrounding
areas and communities in finalizing their eligible FAA noise grant
funding.
I have been informed that as a result of judicial inverse
condemnation proceedings, the city was forced to acquire certain
properties and relocate former owners and occupants from certain sites
covered by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, Airport Noise
Compatibility. This action required significant financial commitments
from the local authorities, the city of Gainesville, and the Regional
Airport Authority which these parties were apparently led to believe
would be eligible
[[Page S9284]]
for reimbursement through the AIP Noise Grant Program.
Would you not concur, Mr. Chairman, that this matter warrants FAA
consideration?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I can assure the Senator from Florida
that I certainly think this is a matter which the FAA should carefully
review. And, I look forward to working with him to bring both these
matters to a resolution before the Congress finalizes the fiscal year
1997 legislation.
vts 2000 colloquy
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would like to engage into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, I would like to commend the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on its committee report
which provides funding to complete the final development of the Vessel
Traffic System [VTS] 2000. This is a system that is necessary to
enhance the safety and environmental quality of our country's vital
ports and waterways. In the recent past, and quoted in the committee's
report, the GAO has estimated the cost of establishing these VTS
Systems at the originally envisioned 17 ports at a cost of up to $310
million. Through a competitive bidding process and the widespread use
of commercial off-the-shelf and non-developmental equipment, the
estimated costs have now been dramatically reduced. In fact, recent
estimates of the costs are well below those estimated by the GAO--now
less than $200 million. And that number could be substantially reduced
depending on what type of systems are implemented as part of VTS 2000.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate my colleague's remarks. The VTS 2000
program was one that we considered very carefully during markup of the
Transportation appropriations bill this year. I believe that the VTS
2000 system provides great promise in promoting the safety and
environmental protection of our Nation's waterways. The conference
committee will indeed consider very carefully during our deliberations
these cost issues you have just raised.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks made by my colleagues regarding the VTS 2000 system. The study
which was recently published by the Marine Board of the National
Research Council concluded that ``there is a compelling national
interest in protecting the environment and in providing safe and
efficient ports and waterways.'' and that ``VTS can be a significant
factor in enhancing the safety and efficiency of ports and waterways .
. .''. Establishing VTS systems at our Nation's important ports and
waterways is absolutely vital. Also, I agree with my colleague that the
estimated cost to produce and field the systems has been dramatically
reduced. In addition, I would like to highlight the fact that the
estimated annual costs to operate the system once it has been deployed
have also been greatly reduced. Whereas some have estimated the annual
operating costs of a VTS system to be $65 million, the Coast Guard now
believes that those costs will be only $42 million per year for
installation at all proposed posts, which includes the $20 million
currently being spent annually on five operational ports. I would also
note that there are a variety of creative ways to meet those annual
operating obligations which should be fully reviewed once a final VTS
system is proposed.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the very knowledgeable
comments of Senator Breaux. He is correct that there are significant
potential cost reductions in both the establishment and operation of
the VTS 2000 system. Both of my colleagues can rest assured that I will
keep these issues clearly in focus as we deliberate the fiscal year
1997 Transportation appropriations bill in conference with the other
body.
Mr. HATFIELD. I also appreciate the very knowledgeable comments of
both of my distinguished colleagues from Louisiana. Maintaining the
safety and environmental quality of this Nation's waterways remain
critically important objectives of this subcommittee. The important
cost issues raised by the Senators from Louisiana should be carefully
considered by the conference committee as well as the completion of a
final VTS system.
mid-america aviation resource consortium
Mr. NICKLES. Senator Hatfield, I strongly support the Senate report
language which opposes the House's earmark of $1,700,000 for the Mid-
America Aviation Resource Consortium [MARC]. In order to fund the
facility in Minnesota, the House transferred funds out of the air
traffic controller training program from the FAA Academy in Oklahoma
City. This is an imprudent transfer of funds to a program which has not
received the necessary support to continue.
I refer my colleagues to the conference report that accompanied the
fiscal year 1996 bill which stated, ``The conferees agree to provide
$250,000 for continued support of the Mid-America Aviation Resource
Consortium as proposed by the House, but intend that this be the final
year of Federal support for this facility unless requested in the
President's budget.'' Funding for this facility was not requested in
the President's fiscal year 1997 budget.
I would like to include in the Record a letter from Mr. Richard
Sanford, director of the Florida Aviation Management Development
Associates, an FAA contractor, to Senator Mack which references the
reallocation of $1.7 million in the House bill. Mr. Sanford writes,
``This action, taken against the wishes of the FAA, effectively reduces
the [FAA Academy's] budget and directly decrements $1.7 million from a
competitively awarded instructional services contract held by the
University of Oklahoma. I am very concerned that this action serves to
penalize desired academic/business partnerships in the interests of
supporting a consortium whose members have neither competed for the
business nor are the FAA's preferred instructional service
provider(s).''
I urge Senate conferees on the fiscal year 1997 transportation
appropriations bill to insist upon the Senate position.
Mr. HATFIELD. Senator nickles, I appreciate your interest in this
important issue and your strong commitment to safety training at the
FAA. I oppose the House effort to reallocate $1,700,000 from the FAA
Academy to MARC and will remind conferees of the intention of the
fiscal year 1996 conference report to terminate funding for MARC.
Finally, I will urge the fiscal year 1997 conference to maintain the
position outlined in the Senate provision.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Sanford be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
FAMDA, a Joint Venture,
Palm Coast, FL, July 10, 1996.
Senator Connie Mack,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mack: The Federal Aviation Administration has
elected to model partnerships between the Government,
academia, and business by awarding both technical and non-
technical instructional services contracts to organizations
featuring such partnerships. In the technical training area,
the partnership with the FAA at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma
City is shared by the University of Oklahoma with American
Systems Corporation as a subcontractor. In the non-technical
area, Florida Aviation Management Development Associates
(FAMDA), a joint venture between the University of Central
Florida and American Systems Corporation (ASC) supports the
Center for Management Development (CMD) in Palm Coast,
Florida.
A short time ago, the House Appropriations Subcommittee
signed out their appropriations bill which, among other
things, directed the reallocation of $1.7M originally
budgeted to support instructional activities at the FAA
Academy in Oklahoma City to the Mid-America Aviation Research
Consortium (MARC), a group of educational institutions which
have positioned themselves to provide technical training
support to the FAA. This action, taken against the wishes of
the FAA, effectively reduces the Academy budget and directly
decrements $1.7M from a competitively awarded instructional
services contract held by the University of Oklahoma. I am
very concerned that this action serves to penalize desired
academic/business partnerships in the interests of supporting
a consortium whose members have neither competed for the
business nor are the FAA's preferred instructional services
provider(s). I am also mindful that this same flawed strategy
could be applied to the Center for Management Development in
Palm Coast to the detriment of the University of Central
Florida and ASC.
Senator Don Nickles is leading an effort to restore the
$1.7M in funding to the FAA Academy and, ultimately, the
University of Oklahoma. I urge you to lend your support to
his efforts and favorably resolve this issue in conference. I
have attached information
[[Page S9285]]
which may provide additional insight on this issue.
Thank you for your continued support of CMD and the FAMDA
joint venture.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Sanford,
Managing Director.
Mr. KERRY. This is a good bill, Mr. President, responsibly and
carefully assembled by the distinguished chairman, the ranking
Democratic member, the subcommittee and its staff. I compliment them on
their work and support its passage.
Even so, Mr. President, due to the very difficult budget environment
in which we are laboring, this bill does not do complete justice to
what I believe are vital transportation infrastructure needs, a reality
on which I believe I could find considerable agreement with the
chairman and ranking member. For example, Massachusetts and other
States need more funding for mass transit and passenger rail than the
committee could provide.
Federal funding for Amtrak has declined by approximately one-quarter
since 1995. This year, the Senate bill appropriates $592 million for
Amtrak for 1997 which is $130 million more than the House provided. I
commend the committee for at least including this amount for Amtrak
because the House's amount is a slow-motion death penalty. The capital-
intensive nature of passenger rail makes it unlikely to survive as a
viable transportation mode without some kind of Government support. And
I do not know why we find that surprising. We heavily subsidize
scheduled air travel, general aviation, and highways. It is entirely
appropriate--and beneficial to our Nation--that we subsidize passenger
rail.
The United States still falls short among the nations of the world in
per capita spending on passenger rail--behind such countries as
Belarus, Botswana, and Guinea, not to mention the nations of Western
Europe. It is my hope that the Senate position on funding for Amtrak
will be sustained in the conference committee to resolve the
differences between the bills passed by the House and the Senate. And
as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has reported
legislation to restructure Amtrak in order to place it on a path toward
greater fiscal stability and accountability, I am very hopeful that we
can enact reauthorization legislation before the end of the 104th
Congress.
I strongly support the Senate actions to fund the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Project [NECIP] which is vital to reducing congestion in
the corridor and which, in turn, will result in important
environmental, energy and employment benefits. We must move ahead with
track work, upgrading maintenance facilities and completion of the
electrification of the northern section as soon as possible. The $200
million in funding this legislation provides for NECIP will enable this
important work to move forward. Again, I urge the members of the
Committee who will be conferees to insist on the Senate position on
NECIP in the conference committee. I would like to express my gratitude
to Chairman Hatfield and Ranking Member Lautenberg for their continuing
and dependable support of NECIP.
Another area of special importance to Massachusetts is mass transit.
I cannot avoid being disappointed by this bill's funding level for mass
transit operating assistance. Recent cuts in funding have had a
devastating effect on mass transit systems in my State. In
Massachusetts, statutory caps are imposed on the amount of funding
transit authorities can receive from State and local sources.
Therefore, cuts in Federal assistance have a direct, immediate, and
unavoidable impact on service to seniors, workers and students in my
State. Having voiced my concern, I do want to acknowledge that I
realize this problem is not attributable to the will of the
subcommittee, its chairman, or its ranking member.
My constituents living and working in the Boston area are very
appreciative for the funding included in the bill for the South Boston
Piers Transitway, which is a critical component of the State
Implementation Plan to comply with Clean Air Act requirements, and is
anticipated to serve 22,000 riders daily. The transitway will be
integrated with the extensive network of transit, commuter rail and bus
service at South Station.
I also appreciate support for the restoration of historic Union
Station in Springfield, MA, which will allow for the consolidation of
regional transportation services in western Massachusetts in a single
intermodal facility for local bus lines, intercity bus systems, trains,
taxis, and limousine service. The restoration of the facility will be
accompanied by renovation of the facility to accommodate commercial
tenancy.
Also welcome is the committee's recommended funding for the
development of the Cape Cod Intermodal Center which will accommodate
intercity buses, regional buses, local shuttles, intercity trains,
Amtrak summer tour trains, and bicyclists and will provide connections
to the steamship authority's Hyannis terminal and to Barnstable
Municipal Airport.
Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member, who have labored
conscientiously and diligently to do as much good in the transportation
arena for the Nation and its people as possible under the budget
restrictions imposed on them. I also want to acknowledge with
appreciation the work of the staff with whom I am familiar, Pat McCann,
Peter Rogoff, and Anne Miano. I offer my strongest encouragement to the
conferees the Senate will name to work out differences between the
House-passed and Senate-passed bills. This is a good bill, and I
fervently hope the conference agreement will contain its best features.
It matters to the nation and its people in 1996, and it will matter in
the future.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to speak today in support of
the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
I commend the leadership of the Transportation Subcommittee, Chairman
Hatfield and ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for their hard work in
fashioning a program of infrastructure investment and safety
enhancement with such little resources available to the subcommittee
under this budget.
This bill makes considerable improvements over the House-passed
legislation. These improvements will provide better air quality, better
mobility for our citizens and safer skies. The recent tragedies from
the air disasters from Florida and New York sadly underscored the fact
that we have not done all that we can to make our skies safer.
I represent a State with 32 commercial airports, including at least
half a dozen international airports, that handle more than 123 million
passengers a year. So, I have a particularly strong interest in being
sure that aviation security is our highest priority in air travel.
As a member of the House Government Operations Committee that held
extensive hearings on the Pan Am Flight 103 disaster in 1989, and later
as Chair of its Subcommittee on Government Activities and
Transportation, I strongly urged greater attention to aviation
security.
I want to also add my thanks to the chairman for the increased
funding for aviation safety. Funding in the bill will add 250 more air
traffic controllers and provide needed investment in our airways
infrastructure, including $1.46 billion in airport improvement program
funding. The House provided only $1.3 billion, a cut of $150 million
from this year's level.
I am particularly pleased that the Senate committee provided the full
amount requested by the President for the northern California TRACON.
This is the regional radar facility for air traffic. The Senate's
funding of the $8.7 million requested keeps this facility on track for
commissioning in November 2000.
The Senate bill also provides $3.1 million for the precision approach
path indicators, a state-of-the-art navigational systems for our
airports. This funding will enable the Los Angeles company which
manufactures this equipment to keep their production lines open.
I also believe ocean traffic safety will be enhanced by a provision
that would prohibit funds to prohibit the Coast Guard from implementing
regulations that would permit vessels to operate with a narrower margin
of safety between Santa Barbara and San Francisco. This is a high-
traffic area, particularly for oil tankers. The provision prohibits a
vessel traffic safety fairway which is less than 5 miles wide. I
authored a similar provision as a Member of the House. It makes good
sense.
[[Page S9286]]
On enhancing trade, the Senate could do no better than its support
for the Alameda transportation corridor. The Senate Appropriations
Committee's support for the Alameda corridor project was our last major
hurdle for moving this major trade project forward.
Last year in the National Highway System bill, we declared the
project a ``high priority corridor,'' eligible for a Federal loan. We
worked with the President's top financing and transportation experts to
fashion a loan package, and the President requested the $59 million
appropriation to pay the subsidy cost for a $400 million loan for the
$2 billion project.
The House supported that program, and now we have the Senate on
board. The House and Senate approach the loan in different ways.
Although this is not the approach that I would have recommended,
Senator Hatfield preferred using part of the funds provided under the
State infrastructure bank program to provide a direct Federal loan for
the project instead of the House's plan under the Federal Railroad
Administration's loan guarantee program.
We can work out the best approach in conference. But there is no
doubt that the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, mayors of
Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Governor of California and the
President of the United States all support $59 million in Federal seed
money to build this project. It will eliminate more than 200
intersections with the rail link to the largest port complex in the
United States, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It will provide
a modern gateway to Pacific Rim trade for our exporters across the
country.
The Senate bill provides $234 million more for transit than the House
bill, including $134 million more for local rail systems. Each weekday
more than 6.8 million commuters use some form of transit, eliminating
the need for more than 1,000 lanes of urban highways. I think that is a
good investment in terms of improved air quality and economic
productivity for our people.
The bill provides needed transit investment for California
communities, including $5.5 million for a new transit center for
Stockton which will anchor its major downtown redevelopment plans and
$2.5 million to consolidate several, duplicative transit operations
around Lake Tahoe into an efficient system using the latest in
intelligent transportation technology. The bill provides $3 million for
the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative and $600,000 for a new
multimodal transit center in Thousand Oaks.
I am particularly pleased at the committee's decision to approve the
President's request for funding the advanced technology transit bus.
This project, under development in Los Angeles, uses the expertise of
our defense aerospace industry to build a next-generation transit bus
that will run on a variety of clean fuels, will provide considerable
maintenance savings to our transit agencies and will provide
conveniences for disabled passengers.
The committee included my request for $13.1 million in bus
discretionary funding to deploy five bus prototypes for transit
agencies participating in the project across the country.
Do I agree with everything in this bill? No, of course not. We do not
meet the President's request for operating money for the Federal
Aviation Administration. On the transit side, I am troubled by the
freeze on operating assistance and the low funding for our major fixed
rail transit projects in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
I am particularly concerned over the language in the Committee Report
for the Bay Area Rapid Transit project to link up with San Francisco
International Airport. I appreciate the chairman's generosity in
personally meeting with me and Senator Feinstein to hear our request
for funding. Although the committee provided $20 million for the Bay
Area rails program, it included harsh and overly restrictive report
language.
I believe it is well within reason to restrict Federal funding until
BART has presented a detailed financing plan and met all local funding
commitment criteria. However, to hold up a full funding grant agreement
``until all litigation regarding this project is resolved'' is highly
unrealistic. This language must send a chill down the spine of every
major transit general manager. What project is next? Lawsuits are not
uncommon on any public works project, and there are legal avenues
already available particularly to address the environmental impact
issues.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Mr. Gordon Linton, administrator of the Federal Transit Administration,
in this regard.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Department
of Transportation,
Federal Transit Administration,
Washington, DC, July 31, 1996.
Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatfield: I write to express concern about
language in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year
1997 U.S. Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act that would prohibit the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) from executing a Full Funding Grant
Agreement or issuing a Letter of No Prejudice for the Bay
Area Transit District's extension to San Francisco
International Airport (the ``SFO extension'') ``until all
litigation'' against the project ``has been resolved . . .''
For the reasons presented below, I respectfully request that
this language be deleted in conference.
First, let me emphasize that, for good reason, no such
directive has been applied to any fixed guideway project in
FTA's thirty-five year history. All large transit projects,
like all large public works projects, are inevitably the
subject of some litigation. We cannot expect otherwise.
Indeed, all Federal transit grantees undertaking new starts
set aside contingency line items in their budgets to finance
the litigation they can and should anticipate in the ordinary
course of business. Resolution of such litigation often takes
many years.
The language in the Senate report would require than a $1.2
billion investment in economic growth, congestion mitigation,
and enhanced mobility for the Bay Area somehow proceed with
no grievances against the project from contractors,
suppliers, property owners, competing providers of
transportation, or interested parties opposing the project.
Whatever the intent, the language would hold the BART SFO
extension hostage to any party making a claim--whether
meritorious of spurious--against the project for the purpose
of extracting money or other concessions from BART and
Federal and local taxpayers.
Second, notwithstanding the persistent threats of
environmental litigation against the SFO extension, both FTA
and BART have every confidence in the adequacy of our
environmental studies for this project and in our compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and all other
applicable Federal and local environmental law and
regulations. Let me assure you that there has never been a
transit project that was the subject of NEPA and CEQA
documents so thorough and voluminous as those for this
project.
Finally, the selection of the locally preferred alternative
for the SFO extension was the result of a very open,
vigorous, and lengthy debate. Clearly, not everyone will be
pleased with the tough decisions that must be made to pursue
a project so vital and visible as this one; such is the
nature of the transportation industry and the legacy of the
Federal transit program's reliance on local decisionmaking to
best serve a locality's needs. Litigation against a project
ought to stand or fall on its own merits in the courts; it
ought not be allowed to skew the orderly, even-handed
development of legislation for the Fedreal transportation
programs.
I have sent a similar letter to Congressman Wolf. Please
let me know if I can be of any assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gordon I. Linton.
Mrs. BOXER. I look forward to continued conversations with the
chairman and BART officials to bring some better understanding of their
respective concerns before the Senate completes a conference report on
the bill.
I also look forward to further conversations on how we can increase
funding for the Los Angeles Red Line extension. The $55 million
provided in the bill will have a serious impact on the project's
construction schedule. The amount is about a third of the President's
request. The shortfall could lead to $300 million in cost increases
from delays. More than 5,000 jobs would be lost. Ultimately, this
shortfall will lead to slower highway speeds and costly delays that our
stressed Los Angeles highway network and its commuters can hardly
sustain.
We still have more work to do in conference to improve the
infrastructure investments for California. Overall, the Senate bill
provides greater help for my State, and I am hopeful these last few
differences can be settled so we can
[[Page S9287]]
send the bill to the President for his signature.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
transportation appropriations bill. I want to applaud Senators Hatfield
and Lautenberg for their strong leadership over an area of increased
competition for fewer dollars.
This legislation though, is bittersweet, as it marks the final
transportation bill for Chairman Hatfield. My neighbor to the south has
been a compassionate champion for our Nation's infrastructure. The loss
to this body and the Pacific Northwest will be felt for a very long
time.
The State of Washington has witnessed tremendous growth over the last
decade, accompanied by traffic congestion on roads that have not kept
pace with this region's large influx of residents. I am pleased that
this bill seeks to accommodate much of that growth within the Puget
Sound region.
The committee has included funds which support a commuter rail
service between the cities of Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. This line
would form the foundation for a larger regional transit service in the
Puget Sound that is set for a vote this November. This commuter service
would operate trains on existing track between the most heavily
populated centers of Washington State.
The committee also included funding to aid commuters traveling from
suburban cities to downtown Seattle. These funds will enable King
County Metro to connect the cities of Kenmore, Redmond, Renton,
Tukwila, and Auburn with Seattle, through smaller neighborhood buses
that meet larger commuter buses heading into the city.
Further, I am thrilled that the bill has included funds that support
a comprehensive transportation solution to congestion around the
Kingdome and new baseball stadium. Together with King County, the city
of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Port
of Seattle, the Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District and
Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad, these dollars will create a
transit center facilitating access for both transit and pedestrians
through the area.
Last, Mr. President, I wanted to commend the committee for allowing
Wenatchee to finish construction on the Chelan-Douglas Multimodal
Center. The city of Wenatchee and Link Transit Systems have been
working on the Multimodal Transportation Center project for 3 years.
These funds will finish construction on the project and improve
pedestrian and bicycle access.
All of these projects utilize several different modes of
transportation to more quickly and efficiently move our growing
population. I appreciate the committee's hard work in light of
difficult budget choices and urge my colleagues' support of this
critical appropriations bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year
1997.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing us a balanced bill considering the current budget
constraints.
The Senate reported bill provides $12.6 billion in new budget
authority [BA] and $12.3 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of
the Department of Transportation, including federal aid highway, mass
transit, and aviation activities.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority is taken into account,
the bill totals $12.6 billion in BA and $36.1 billion in new outlays.
The subcommittee is essentially at its 602(b) allocation in both BA
and outlays.
The Senate reported bill is $184 million in outlays below the
President's 1997 request. The bill does provide for the President's
request of $250 million for state infrastructure banks.
The Senate reported bill is $240 million in BA below the House
version of the bill. Both House and Senate bills provide the same
amount of outlays.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this
point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL--
FISCAL YEAR 1997
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary;
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed.................................... ......... 37
H.R. 3675, as reported to the Senate.......... ......... .........
Scorekeeping adjustment....................... ......... .........
---------------------
Subtotal defense discretionary.............. ......... 37
Nondefense discretionary:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed.................................... ......... 23,748
H.R. 3675, as reported to the Senate.......... 11,950 11,668
Scorekeeping adjustment....................... ......... .........
---------------------
Subtotal nondefense discretionary........... 11,950 35,416
Mandatory:
Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions
completed.................................... ......... .........
H.R. 3675, as reported to the Senate.......... 608 602
Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with
Budget Resolutions assumptions............... -3 .........
---------------------
Subtotal mandatory.......................... 605 602
=====================
Adjusted bill total....................... 12,555 36,055
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary......................... ......... 37
Nondefense discretionary...................... 11,950 35,416
Violent crime reduction trust fund............ ......... .........
Mandatory..................................... 605 602
Total allocation............................ 12,555 36,055
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate
Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:
Defense discretionary......................... ......... .........
Nondefense discretionary...................... ......... .........
Violent crime reduction trust fund............ ......... .........
Mandatory..................................... ......... .........
Total allocation.............................. ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I support the bill and urge its
adoption.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to be
offered.
I ask for third reading of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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 bill having been read for the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston],
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. Simon], are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Kyl
McCain
NOT VOTING--3
Johnston
Pryor
Simon
The bill (H.R. 3675), as amended, was passed.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Now, Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on
its amendments, request a conference with the House of Representatives
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized
to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
[[Page S9288]]
The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr.
Hatfield, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Shelby,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski and Mr. Reid
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to call attention to a matter
relating to one of our staff people, Pat McCann, who is the staff
director for the majority party. He is a very interesting person who
has been on this committee, the transportation subcommittee, for 13
years. It is illustrative of another matter, and that is how our
committee must operate on a bipartisan basis.
When we bring a bill to the floor we have to have comanagers, in
which the ranking member and whoever he or she may be, a Democrat and a
Republican, and the Chair, have to have agreed to the bill and
therefore present a united front. I say this is unusual about
committees in the Senate, but we are the only committee that has to
report bills by law. We have to keep this country going and, therefore,
we have to report 13 bills, come whatever may.
I happened to be chairing the Appropriations Committee in a previous
cycle, from 1981 to 1987. I, at that time, had an opportunity to hire
on the committee Pat McCann, as the Republican majority at that time.
But subsequent chairmen of that committee, the full committee, Senator
Stennis and Senator Byrd, followed the same pattern that I followed and
that is that we do not wipe out our staff in each election cycle,
because they are truly professionals, serving both sides of the
committee. So Pat McCann continued on in that professional role.
My immediate predecessor, Senator Lautenberg, now the ranking member,
as the chairman of that subcommittee, continued Pat McCann, and Anne
Miano, our assistant staff director, was hired by Senator D'Amato when
he chaired that particular subcommittee. As it was with Peter Rogoff,
who is now the staff director for the minority. They continued all
through these various changes of party and majorityship.
So I not only pay tribute to Pat McCann for his faithful service,
totally professional service that he has provided the committee, but to
all the staff on our particular committee.
I thank also at this time the outstanding work of Senator Lautenberg.
We could not have brought this bill to the floor without Senator
Lautenberg's leadership, and we could not have resolved the many
conflicts and problems that we faced in this committee.
Again, I say to Anne Miano, Peter Rogoff, Pat McCann that we only are
able to do this when we have this kind of staff. We look good, and at
the same time we have to realize it is more than just our charming
personalities. It is the fine work of staff that has made possible the
producing of this bill.
So I just want to call attention to Pat's leaving of the Senate. He
is going to move through the conference with us. By the time we get
that conference report back here, he will probably be up in the
balcony, up in the gallery. I hope he is not editorializing verbally up
there as we proceed with the conference report, because I expect it to
be of such quality that we will be able to pass it with a voice vote
within a very, very brief time.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, want to add some words of
commendation and appreciation to the staff, particularly on this
occasion when Pat McCann will have seen the last transportation
appropriations bill that he is going to have to work on. I reminded
him, sometime he is going to look back here, where it is a quarter to
10 at night, he has not had dinner, has not seen his family, he has not
been able to watch the Olympics, how much he is going to miss this
place. He started to weep, and I could see a tear fall down his cheek,
but he will be strong.
On a serious note, Pat's service has been truly exemplary of
bipartisanship. He came to me as a Republican, stayed with me as a
Republican and left as a Republican. That is really bipartisan. But we
have worked very well together--again, trying to be serious, Pat and
Peter, the two senior people on each of the subcommittee staffs, the
majority and the minority, have given loyal service wherever and
whenever called upon to do so.
We are going to miss Pat. He brings a special touch and a good sense
of humor and knows the subject extremely well, and he had the good
judgment to send his daughter to college in New Jersey. Princeton, of
course, is a nice place to have a child. Mine didn't go there. He felt
it was too close to dad or too close to home. Pat has been a marvelous,
marvelous influence on staff and on Members as well.
So it is with other members. Peter Rogoff is really busy these days.
We learned the difference between being in the majority and being in
the minority. It is numbers of people that you have to do the job.
Peter has been a very able assistant throughout this.
I thank also Anne Miano. I have gotten to know Anne over the years
and watched her approach motherhood and do that very well, while also
staying on top of the work she has here.
Joyce Rose who has been helpful, Carole Geagley and Mike Brennan, his
first time on the bill. To all the staff, my deepest appreciation and
thanks for a good job.
When I look at how complicated things are right now and see how
sparse the funding for major, significant programs has become, we just
dealt with over 37 billion dollars' worth of funding, very important
transportation programs dealing with aviation, highways, rail, Coast
Guard, and I think have done it with balance and with consideration for
the value of all of the programs.
That resulted, Mr. President, from the influence of Senator Hatfield,
his leadership, his constancy, his conscientious belief that things
have to be right among all, not just a few. It has enabled me to feel
very good and feel like a full partner, though in the minority status
and throughout the negotiation and the planning and the hearings and
the markup of this bill.
So, we note with a degree of sadness, though he will be here with
other bills, this is the last time that we will have Senator Hatfield's
valued hand as chairman. I hope, too, the conference will go through on
a voice vote and, as a tribute to Mark Hatfield, perhaps I can call on
the goodness of the hearts of our colleagues to do it just that way.
As a friend, as a leader, as an outstanding citizen and American,
Mark Hatfield has been an enlightenment for many of us and particularly
for me in the years I have had a chance to work with him.
We close this bill hoping our colleagues are satisfied with the job
we have tried to do as best we can. I thank the Chair.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________