[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________