[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5624-H5649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2169.

                              {time}  1416


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2169) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
am pleased to present to the House today H.R. 2169, the fiscal year 
1998 transportation appropriations bill.
  This bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and we have 
endeavored to involve the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the 
ranking member of the subcommittee. Like last year, I hope this bill 
will have the overwhelming support of the House today.
  Again this year, the No. 1 priority in developing this bill was 
maintaining and improving safety. In addition, we have placed a high 
priority on funding for our Nation's infrastructure.
  In total, the bill provides $12.48 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, an increase of $400 million over the 1997 level, and the 
bill is $10 million over the President's budget request. Outlays mostly 
needed for transportation infrastructure are up over 4 percent compared 
to last year. These increases respond to the calls of many Members of 
this body that sought to increase transportation and infrastructure 
spending. The bill is $31 million below the subcommittee's allocation 
for budget authority.
  On the safety front, the bill raises funding for Federal Aviation 
Administration operations by over 8 percent, an increase of over $400 
million. This level will fund the requested increase of 500 air traffic 
controllers and 326 additional staff in certification and regulation. 
The bill also includes 18 initiatives to improve air safety. These 
initiatives total $153 million and include additional funds for 
installing airport surface detection systems, automatic alerting 
systems to prevent runway collisions and approach lighting systems. 
Additional funds are provided for research into hazardous weather 
conditions, aircraft safety, and human factors.
  In highway safety, the bill provides more funding for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration than the President requested. In 
fiscal year 1998, a total of $333 million is allocated for NHTSA. This 
organization does critical work in research and public education to 
make our highways safer. Earlier advances in reducing highway 
fatalities in this country have flattened out in recent years, and in 
some States, Mr. Chairman, fatalities are going back up with the repeal 
of the national speed limit last year and increased alcohol use. These 
increases will allow the agency to aggressively work on solving the air 
bag problem and focus more resources on rising alcohol-related highway 
fatalities. In addition, the bill also includes $9 million for a new 
occupant protection grant program.
  Recognizing the importance of investing in the Nation's 
infrastructure,

[[Page H5625]]

the bill increases funding for the Federal-aid highways program to 
$21.5 billion. This is an increase, Mr. Chairman, of over $3.5 billion 
from the 1997 enacted level, or an increase of nearly 20 percent. It is 
a historic high and represents an increase of $1.3 billion over the 
assumption in the congressional budget resolution. This answers those 
who say that the appropriations process and the current budgetary 
treatment of the trust funds cannot provide increases in highway 
spending.
  Funding for transit capital grants is increased to $2.5 billion, an 
increase of $350 million, or 16 percent over the 1997 level. Section 3 
discretionary capital grants total $2 billion, an increase of 5 percent 
or $100 million over the previous year. Funding for transit operating 
assistance, which the administration proposed to eliminate, is reduced 
to $200 million but it is $200 million above what the administration 
had requested. Like the highway program, funding for the transit 
programs is at an all-time high.
  Funding for the AIP program is $1.7 billion, an increase of $240 
million, or 16 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is 70 percent higher than 
the budget request of $1 billion.
  Funding for the Coast Guard totals $3.9 billion, an increase of $116 
million over the 1997 enacted level and $21 million above the 
President's request. The bill fully funds the Coast Guard's drug 
interdiction program, of which $34.3 million requires the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy to certify that these expenditures 
represent the best investment relative to other possible alternatives.
  Funding for Amtrak, Mr. Chairman, totals $793 million, which is $30 
million more than in fiscal year 1997 and also $3.5 million above the 
administration's request. While the bill increases funding above last 
year's level for Amtrak and in doing so provides funding stability to 
the railroad, funding alone is not the panacea for Amtrak's financial 
problems. Comprehensive legislative reform, including unemployment, 
liability, contracting and labor reforms, must also occur if Amtrak is 
to address its financial and operating difficulties.
  A railroad passenger system is a vital part of a balanced 
transportation network, and I think most Members of this body want to 
see Amtrak survive and prosper and thrive and have that opportunity, 
because with the large country that we have, I think a national rail 
system is fundamentally important. To that end, the bill establishes an 
independent commission to conduct an economic assessment of the entire 
Amtrak system. I regret that the rule does not protect the provisions 
establishing the commission, and it may be stricken on a point of 
order. The commission is necessary, since Amtrak's own restructuring 
efforts have not been as successful as planned and since Congress has 
mandated that Amtrak continue a number of unprofitable routes.
  Modeled after the Base Closing Commission, which was set up to 
recommend which bases to close, this commission would make 
recommendations on route closings and realignments needed for the 
survival of a rail passenger system in the United States. Since these 
determinations would be made by the commission, painful route closure 
and realignment choices would be less politicized and the 
recommendations would then be considered by Congress on an expedited 
basis.
  Finally, the bill is very clean of extraneous provisions. We have 
tried hard to work with the legislative committees to ensure their 
support for the bill. There are no major policy changes or time bombs 
in the bill. For the surface transportation programs authorized by 
ISTEA, the bill assumes current law and does not presuppose or prejudge 
the action of the appropriate legislative committees as they consider 
the reauthorization of ISTEA. In this way the bill can go forward 
without delay and without needless controversy.
  I think it is a balanced bill, it is a bipartisan bill, it is a bill 
that puts emphasis on our higher responsibility of protecting and 
enhancing transportation safety. The bill also provides critical 
investments in our Nation's infrastructure which drives the Nation's 
economic engine.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for his cooperation. I would also like to thank 
the following individuals who assisted in developing the fiscal year 
1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act. They include John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda 
Muir, Ken Marx, and Cheryl Smith with the minority staff.
  I wish to recognize and thank those associate staff members who 
supported the Members of this House in the preparation and passage of 
the fiscal year 1998 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill, H.R. 2169: David Whitestone of my office, Monica Vega-Kladakis of 
Majority Whip DeLay's office, Connie Veillette of Mr. Regula's office, 
Steve Carey of Mr. Roger's office, Eric Mondero of Mr. Packard's 
office, Todd Rich of Mr. Callahan's office, Joe Cramer of Mr. Tiahrt's 
office, Mark Zeldon of Mr. Aderholt's office, Paul Cambon of Chairman 
Livingston's office, Marjorie Duske of Mr. Sabo's office, Barbara 
Zylinski-Mizrahi of Mr. Foglietta's office, Albert Jacquez and Nancy 
Alcalde of Mr. Torres' office, David Oliveira of Mr. Olver's office, 
Blake Gable of Mr. Pastor's office, and Paul Carver of Mr. Obey's 
office.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:

[[Page H5626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.000



[[Page H5627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.001



[[Page H5628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.002



[[Page H5629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY97.003



[[Page H5630]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Let me start 
by saying to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] that he has done an 
outstanding job chairing this committee. I think he ran very good 
hearings. They were fair, they were to the point, but they were also 
tough. At times he pushed the administration hard on certain issues. 
When he did, I thought it was appropriate. He has been fair in writing 
this bill, and we appreciate that fairness. He has conducted his year 
as chairman of this subcommittee this year as a real pro. We appreciate 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. He has done great work. He 
mentioned all the staff, the majority and minority, who worked on this 
committee. I would share his sentiments toward them. They worked hard, 
they are knowledgeable, they are open and fair and worked well with 
each other. I simply say thank you to all of them for myself and for 
the minority. The majority staff has been very open and very good to 
work with.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill itself is one I intend to vote for. It has 
important funding for whole hosts of transportation programs and 
projects throughout the country that make important investment in our 
country's infrastructure. I must say I have two reservations about the 
bill, one that I do not expect to change, one that I hope will change 
as we go through the legislative process.
  I am concerned that we are reducing transit operating subsidies to 
$200 million. That is a significant reduction from the current level of 
funding. The level of capital assistance has been going down over a 
period of years. On the other hand, the bill is $200 million more than 
requested by the administration for operating assistance. The committee 
mark is significantly better than what the administration has 
recommended, and for that I am thankful, but I am concerned with what 
that reduction is going to do in very important marginal funding for 
many transit agencies around the country.
  My one concern that I hope we can deal with before this bill comes 
back from conference is funding for Amtrak. In my judgment, that 
remains a very major problem in this bill. There is very significant 
funding for capital expenditures by Amtrak. That clearly will help 
their capacity to develop revenue and ridership in the years ahead. The 
problem, however, is that the level of operating assistance for Amtrak 
for the next year is so low that it brings into question whether Amtrak 
will survive the year. It is an issue and I know the chairman shares my 
concern that that is not what we want to have happen, and I am hopeful 
that before this bill comes back to the House again in conference that 
we can make adjustments to make sure that Amtrak survives the year and 
goes on. They provide very important, crucial transportation services 
in this country. Ridership is going up, revenues are going up. It is 
not a system in decline. They have had problems in part because of what 
Congress has decided in the past as it relates to operating assistance 
and requirements on route structures they maintain, particularly what 
we did last year where we put some mandates on them and did not provide 
enough money to pay for those mandates.

                              {time}  1430

  But clearly our assistance to Amtrak for operations for the balance 
of this year, in my judgment it needs to be increased before the bill 
goes to the President for his signature. Other than that, I think it is 
a good bill and it is one that I hope the Members will vote for.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, and I certainly want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for the 
job they have done here. They have been faced with some real budgetary 
constraints, and they have brought about a balance that I think is 
really very, very commendable. Indeed they have reached a historic high 
in the highway obligation ceiling, from 18.6 to 21.5 billion, raised 
the transit program, and indeed I want to assure them that as my 
committee proceeds with the reauthorization of ISTEA we will certainly 
take very seriously their actions where they have identified some 
transit programs subject to authorization. These new transit starts are 
important, and we will deal with them in a very, very serious and, I 
believe, positive way.
  On the issue of Amtrak, I agree completely with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] that Amtrak is in very, very serious trouble. I 
believe it is on a steep curve to bankruptcy, and I want to see us save 
Amtrak. I disagree with him respectfully on the point on the Base 
Closure Commission, perhaps the most important reason being that I do 
not think we have time for that. Amtrak is going to be in bankruptcy in 
the next 6 to 12 to 10 months on the outside. But we must reform 
Amtrak. Our subcommittee, under the chairmanship of the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Molinari] is moving ahead with this, and I expect 
before we leave town this month, in committee we will attempt to move 
reform legislation.
  I say attempt. Last year I emphasized that this House passed Amtrak 
reform legislation by a vote of 406 to 4, overwhelming, and now I 
understand the same legislation that passed this House overwhelmingly 
on a bipartisan basis may not have the same bipartisan support that it 
had last year. It pains me greatly to hear that, if indeed it is 
accurate, because if that is the case, then we will not have reform 
legislation, and if we do not have reform legislation, I do not believe 
the votes are going to exist to get the funding so necessary to save 
Amtrak.
  So in closing I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking 
member for the outstanding job they have done, emphasize my commitment 
to trying to find a way to save Amtrak and look forward to the other 
important transportation legislation that we will be dealing with in 
this Congress in the weeks ahead.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kucinich].
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. Chairman, in its committee report, the committee stated clearly 
its intention that the Coast Guard can, quote, ``do more to lower its 
operating costs through greater energy conservation,'' unquote.
  In 1994 the President issued Executive Order 12902, the goal of which 
was to encourage cost-effective uses of solar energy by all departments 
in the Government. Mr. Chairman, there are applications for which solar 
energy is the lowest-cost energy source and is a promising route 
towards energy savings. Would it not be consistent both with the 
Executive order and with the energy consciousness of this committee 
that the Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation and all 
agencies under its jurisdiction investigate the cost-effective 
utilization of solar technology to the maximum extent practical?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] is 
correct. The intent of the committee was to investigate energy saving 
possibilities, and solar technology is a promising route to saving 
energy. The Executive order the gentleman speaks of is relevant here. 
Therefore we agree that the Coast Guard and all agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation should make every 
effort to uphold the letter and the spirit of Executive Order 12902 and 
investigate cost-saving utilization and solar technologies to the 
maximum extent possible.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on

[[Page H5631]]

Appropriations for issues very important to the folks of Kansas.
  Mr. Chairman, because of the merger between the Union Pacific and the 
Southern Pacific Railroads, the city of Wichita would be faced with a 
significant increase in trains traveling through the center of town. 
These trains will cause significant health, safety and traffic 
congestion. The Surface Transportation Board has jurisdiction over the 
Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger. The board has already required 
the merger company, Union Pacific, to pay all baseline mitigation costs 
of this merger. On April 15, 1997, the board stated that the Union 
Pacific will have to pay the full cost of baseline mitigation resulting 
from a merger. However, several weeks before this decision was 
rendered, Union Pacific downscaled the extent of the train traffic 
increase to 5\1/2\ trains and increased the speed of those trains to 30 
miles per hour.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding too.
  Mr. TIAHRT. There is justifiable fear, I believe, in my district that 
the Union Pacific will significantly increase the number of trains 
traveling through Wichita after the Surface Transportation's 5-year 
review period. The board has taken the Union Pacific at its word and 
adjusted, although not yet officially, the amount of mitigation 
necessary for Wichita. I am concerned that the Union Pacific will not 
be able to increase the speed of its trains to 30 miles per hour or 
will significantly increase the number of trains traveling through 
Wichita after the 5-year period of the Surface Transportation Board 
review. Increasing the speed of trains going through Wichita will be 
extremely difficult even under ideal conditions, and with the breakup 
of Conrail, train traffic going through Kansas City will probably 
increase. This will put further pressure on Union Pacific to route more 
trains through Wichita.
  Mr. Chairman, the report language included in this bill is designed 
to give the citizens of Wichita an avenue to redress in case Union 
Pacific decides to significantly increase the number of trains 
traveling through Wichita or if the Union Pacific does not increase the 
speeds of its trains as they promised.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield, that is the purpose of 
including the language that we have in the report.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I ask the committee pay close attention to the Surface 
Transportation Board and its environmental mitigation study for 
Wichita. The report language specifies that the committee is concerned 
with Surface Transportation Finance Docket Number 32760. The committee 
is instructing the board to use as the basis for its decision 
verifiable and appropriate assumptions such as train speed and the 
number of trains. The committee is not telling the board what to base 
its decision on, but it is saying that the assumption it uses must be 
verifiable and appropriate. If there is any material change in the 
facts upon which the board bases its decision, then the committee 
expects the board to be proactive in exercising its jurisdiction by re-
examining the final mitigation measures it would impose upon the Union 
Pacific Corp. or any of its subsidiaries.
  For example, if Union Pacific decides to significantly increase the 
number of trains going through Wichita or fails to get their speed up 
to 30 miles per hour going through town, then the committee expects the 
board to exercise its jurisdiction and increase the mitigation 
necessary to remedy the situation. Of course the city of Wichita or an 
interested party must petition the board to reopen the docket. The 
board does not have to monitor the number of trains or the speed of the 
trains traveling through Wichita. Wichita will be monitoring this 
closely.
  I appreciate the opportunity for this colloquy, and I want to comment 
on what a fine job the committee has done with the gentleman's 
leadership.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I appreciate 
that, and I promise the gentleman from Kansas personally, too, we will 
stay with him throughout this issue to make sure that it does not get 
out of hand. I thank the gentleman very much for bringing this to our 
attention.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I will be 
supporting it. The constraints that the committee has are well known 
and the attempts they have to fund infrastructure have been done under 
very difficult situations. I would like to comment, however, on one 
disappointment I have with our transportation funding, and that has to 
do with funding projects along the international border between the 
United States and Mexico.
  I represent part of the city of San Diego. I represent the district 
which has much of the California-Mexico border. The attention that this 
Nation should pay to building up that infrastructure for our economic 
future has not been done. Federal mandates that deal with trade and 
immigration have placed a tremendous strain on our roads and bridges 
and highways and rail lines that simply cannot accommodate the 
increased traffic that results from Federal decisions in trade and in 
immigration.
  It is critical, Mr. Chairman, that we find the Federal funding for 
these highway and rail projects without affecting California's Federal 
highway assistance. I have introduced legislation along with Senator 
Boxer in the other body to establish a $500 million border 
infrastructure fund to pay for these improvements to try to make sure 
that we realize the potential of the international trade that the 
passage of NAFTA and other actions have caused.
  Let me just give my colleagues a couple of examples of what I am 
talking about. By Federal order, all of the commercial truck traffic 
between California and Mexico goes through what we call the Otay Mesa, 
a border crossing which is in my district. Something like 3,000 trucks 
a day now traverse across the border through the border crossing, and 
yet there is no highway of interstate standards that connects that 
highway, connects that border crossing with our interstate highway 
system. At first we only had a two-lane city street, it has been 
enlarged to four lanes and soon to six lanes, but it cannot handle the 
3,000 trucks a day that NAFTA and other actions by this body have 
created.
  It is time that the Federal Government address the infrastructure 
problems that have burdened the city and county of San Diego as we 
contribute our part to increasing international trade and growing the 
economy in this Nation.
  Another example which I will have an amendment on later: If San 
Diego's port could establish a direct rail link with eastern railway 
systems, the whole economy of southern California would be transformed 
for the better. The transformation of our economy requires that we 
rehabilitate an old shortline railroad that was built in 1912 or so 
between San Diego and Arizona. It does not take a lot of money in the 
scheme of things to rehabilitate that railroad, and the Federal 
Government can contribute not through any grants, not through any 
loans, but through merely a loan guarantee that could leverage 20 times 
what we would appropriate. With the rehabilitation of that railroad, 
the port of San Diego becomes a working commercial port, thousands and 
thousands of jobs are created, San Diego finds a new way of economic 
growth that is not dependent on the defense budget, and southern 
California and all of America profits from that.

                              {time}  1445

  These are the examples that I am talking about, Mr. Chairman, that 
hopefully in the future the Subcommittee on Transportation of the 
Committee on Appropriations will include in their efforts.
  We need on the international border, and I speak not just for 
California now, but for Texas and New Mexico and Arizona, we need 
attention paid to the infrastructure projects along the border. They 
are not local pork projects, they are not just provincial kinds of 
requests. The infrastructure that is required benefits the whole 
Nation, and as I said earlier, comes from the mandates that Federal 
trade policy has put on us.

[[Page H5632]]

  While understanding the constraints we have, I would argue that in 
the future some attention be paid to these border infrastructure 
projects, and we begin to really grow the economy of this country in 
new ways.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup] for a colloquy.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the gentleman from 
Virginia in a colloquy related to something important for Louisville, 
KY.
  In 1994 the Federal Aviation Administration advised Congress that 
they would reimburse the Standiford Field in Louisville, KY, for the 
airport's costs of installing a category III instrument landing system 
on runway 35 right. It is my understanding that the FAA has provided 
about $700,000 out of a total estimated funding of $2.4 million for 
this system. That leaves approximately $1.7 million remaining to be 
paid. It is my understanding that those remaining funds are included in 
the FAA's budget request for fiscal year 1998 and that they are 
included in the committee's reported bill.
  Is that the chairman's understanding, as well?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. The gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup] is absolutely, 
positively correct. I have not thought of that airport for years, but I 
flew in there in 1962 when I went to basic training at Fort Knox, KY.
  It was one of the most depressing days of my life. I remember when I 
landed at the airport I arrived into Fort Knox, KY, and they put me on 
KP right away. If I had only known the need then. But I do remember the 
airport well.
  The FAA advises me that all the remaining funds needed to reimburse 
the local authorities for costs related to the ILS are included in the 
fiscal year 1998 budget, and the FAA intends to provide the final 
reimbursement by the end of that fiscal year.
  I was just wondering, do they still march the men up Misery Hill the 
way they used to?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, they do.
  I thank the gentleman for this, and I thank him on behalf of all the 
young men as they come through that airport and they come through a new 
door, an open door to a change in their lives. I thank the gentleman 
very much.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, and 
would appreciate being able to engage in a colloquy with the chairman 
of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the transportation appropriation measure before us 
today contains $2 million for the Northern Indiana South Shore commuter 
rail line. The House report states that this funding is to be used to 
complete a major investment study. However, previously appropriated 
funds will be sufficient to complete the major investment study and it 
will be completed later this year.
  The critical problem facing the commuter rail line is the tremendous 
increase in ridership over the past several years and the lack of 
adequate car space to meet this growth. Would the chairman agree that 
this $2 million could be used to allow the Northern Indiana Commuter 
Transportation District to acquire additional rail cars to relieve 
overload on the commuter rail line?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, I do.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
willingness to work with me in accommodating northern Indiana and the 
Chicago metropolitan transportation needs.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank Chairman Wolf for 
the excellent work he has done in putting this bill together. I know 
that he had a very difficult challenge, but he was able to balance the 
conflicting interests and needs in a way that everybody should be 
satisfied with.
  I have to tell the Members, this is the first time that I have served 
on this appropriations subcommittee, and I have to tell the Members 
that I found the gentleman to be very fair and allowed us to give 
input, and this is why this bill is a bipartisan effort. I congratulate 
him and I congratulate the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo]. I also would like to thank the staff of the majority and of 
the minority for the fine work they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several items included in this bill that I 
would like to point out for special emphasis. I am pleased by the 
increased funding for the Airport Improvement Program. The bill 
increases funding by $700 million over the President's budget request. 
As the Nation's airports continue to see tremendous increase in 
traffic, this additional funding is vital to the continued success and 
modernization of our Nation's airports.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that the committee was able to 
include a major increase in transit program spending. As cities and 
localities across the country struggle with increased automobile 
traffic, it is important that the Federal Government continue to devote 
its resources to alternative means of transportation. I believe the 
funding increase to the transit programs is vital to the continued 
improvement of our Nation's transportation systems, and I appreciate 
the chairman's inclusion of the additional funds.
  The Federal Aviation Administration will also see an increase in 
funding as a result of this bill. I believe that the continued work in 
aviation safety, research, and continued modernization of the FAA 
equipment is one of the most important aspects of this bill. I am 
pleased with the funding that has been made available to the FAA.
  Mr. Chairman, I have made the chairman and the ranking member aware 
of a concern that I have. This deals with the controllers that we have. 
As we have more and more controllers reaching the age of retirement at 
basically a young age, due to the stress that they undertake in doing 
their job, I do not think we are doing enough in terms of recruiting 
and providing an adequate salary to retain the younger incoming flight 
controllers. It is an issue that I know that the chairman and the 
ranking member will continue to work with.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill. I thank Chairman Wolf, I 
thank his staff, and I also thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for making this truly a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which makes the 
transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1998. It is not easy 
balancing funds for trains, for planes, for automobiles, for bridges, 
for asphalt and all the rest that goes into it, but the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] I think has perfected this as an art form.
  One area that I would like to bring to the attention of this body is 
in transit, specifically buses and bus facilities. For the past two 
appropriation cycles the Michigan delegation came to the subcommittee 
somewhat fragmented in their request, each, of course, wanting the 
largest funding they could possibly get. That is not surprising. The 
approach, though, became more troublesome.
  During this present cycle the delegation changed its course and 
decided to unify behind a single funding level. As the sole member of 
the Michigan delegation on the Committee on Appropriations I was glad, 
of course, to do my part, but it took a lot of effort, of course, from 
the chairman and members of the committee. We were able to receive 
commitments from the Michigan Department of Transportation and each of 
our members in the delegation that this approach was best.
  I want to commend each member of our delegation for their willingness 
to try this approach. I would hope we continue this in the years to 
come. It certainly was easier.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members again for their leadership 
and their extraordinary effort on this. I would also like to extend a 
huge thank

[[Page H5633]]

you and a salute to John Blazey on the staff, who worked with my staff 
to bring this to a closure, and I think it all came to a good end.
  With that in mind, I want to thank the gentleman again.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to do is to congratulate 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Sabo] for again bringing a bill to the floor which is absolutely 
bipartisan. I think the gentleman from Virginia has demonstrated a 
great degree of fairness. He has tried to deal very openly with 
virtually every difference in judgment that we have had between the 
various parties and individuals on this bill.
  I think it again demonstrates that within the Committee on 
Appropriations we are having a lot of success in producing bipartisan 
legislation. Unfortunately, that legislation often then winds up being 
blown up because of actions of the Committee on Rules which turn a 
bipartisan product into a partisan fight on the House floor. I am happy 
to say that that has not occurred on this bill. I want to congratulate 
both the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for the fair way in which they have proceeded.
  I would also like to simply take note of a couple of local projects 
which are important to my region of the country.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill finally requires that the 
Coast Guard move forward on a replacement for the Mackinaw icebreaker 
on the Great Lakes. The Mackinaw is some 53 years old. It is going to 
cost a great deal to refurbish. For slightly more than the cost of 
refurbishing, a new icebreaker can be purchased which will last a whole 
lot longer, and I appreciate very much the fact that the committee has 
provided the $2 million to facilitate final decision-making by the 
Coast Guard on this issue.
  It is important to the economy of the region, not just Minnesota and 
Wisconsin, which the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and I 
represent, which is why we pushed this item, but to a number of other 
States as well, including Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and New York.
  I would also like to take note that the bill does include $970,000 
within the FAA budget to continue the testing and evaluation of new 
infrared heating technology for deicing commercial aircraft. That 
technology promises to have very good environmental benefits, and it 
may be a more cost-effective way to deice airplanes than the existing 
chemical deicing methods. The additional testing will take place at the 
Rhinelander-Oneida Airport in Wisconsin, to demonstrate the utility of 
new technology in an operational environment using commercial aircraft. 
I again appreciate the fact that the subcommittee on its merits 
supported the proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there is going to be a lot of 
controversy on this bill. There are some differences. As the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has already indicated, we have substantial 
concerns about the underfunding for Amtrak. I hope that can be 
addressed as we move towards conference, but I expect to see a good 
number of votes for this bill on our side of the aisle as well as the 
majority side of the aisle. It is good to see in the midst of all that 
has happened in the last week that at least on this bill, bipartisan 
comity has for the moment survived intact.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins] so he and I may engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of support of this 
appropriation bill, and also to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's recommendation reduces transit 
operating assistance from $400 million in fiscal year 1997 to $200 
million in fiscal year 1998. As a result, transit districts will need 
to look for ways to reduce their operating and overhead costs. 
Currently virtually all city and regional transit properties have 
excess material on hand. Maintaining the surplus is an operating cost 
which reduces needed resources without providing significant benefits.

                              {time}  1500

  Finding material and other properties available for purchase is time-
consuming and costly, lacking any centralized means of identifying the 
materials. I believe that electronic redistribution center to 
distribute spare parts from transit authorities across the country may 
be one such opportunity to reduce overhead costs of many of the 
Nation's transit operators. With a computerized system through which to 
identify and dispose of surplus parts and materials, transit properties 
would benefit by not having to maintain large surpluses, and they would 
also benefit by having a simple, timely, and lower cost means through 
which to purchase surplus materials.
  This proposal seems suited either for the Department's intelligent 
transportation systems program or the Federal Transit Administration's 
national research program.
  I note that the committee has provided a total of $94 million for 
continued research in intelligent transportation systems in which the 
Federal Transit Administration is involved. As for the FTA's research 
program, the committee's recommendation provides $22.5 million. I 
believe the Department should fully evaluate the potential of such a 
system as well as provide a cost-benefit assessment, timetable, and 
cost estimate of a limited pilot program of electronic redistribution 
center.
  Earlier discussions with the Federal Transit Administration suggest 
the Department's enthusiasm for such a system.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his observations 
and his ideas. I think it is a great idea. We never even thought of it 
in the committee. I will do everything I can, not only to encourage the 
Department to work with the various modes to further explore the 
potential of an electronic redistribution center but also to see if 
there is some way working together with the other side we can kind of 
bring it about, because car dealers and many other groups do that. You 
cannot maintain all of that inventory. And since everybody is 
electronically connected, you could do that and exchange with other 
systems. It is not just a good idea, I think it is a great idea. We 
will do everything we possibly can to see that that takes place, 
working with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the Senate.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those comments 
and his support and appreciate the work that he and the minority side 
have done on this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a valuable member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. This is a good bipartisan bill, I support it strongly. As with 
the gentleman from Arizona, who was speaking as I came in a few minutes 
ago, this is my first year on the subcommittee. I have enjoyed very 
much working on the subcommittee, working with the chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and with the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  I want particularly to commend the chairman for his hard work, for 
his bipartisan work, his very fair work and work of the staff on both 
the majority and minority side. I want to thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], for his help and leadership for 
all of us who are on the minority.
  I must say that we have all benefited from the fact that the chairman 
worked very closely with the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], in 
making this a good bill. The strengths of the bill are many. Many have 
already been mentioned. I just want to add a couple of comments to 
this.
  There is a strong thread of commitment, commitment of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] as chairman,

[[Page H5634]]

to safety, airline safety, transportation safety in general that is 
reflected in this bill. I want to add my support to that commitment. 
Air travel is growing. In a good economy there is a great increase in 
air travel. I note that there is a large increase in the airport 
improvement fund which I think is very important. We also should 
shortly have a new FAA administrator, so I think there will be better 
days in the future for the FAA.
  The bill also provides the beginning of funding that is necessary to 
modernize air traffic control systems in the airport management 
systems.
  I want to thank the ranking member for eloquently stating some other 
needs. I would express that as a need for and a hope that we will be 
able to do better by the end of this cycle in operating assistance for 
transit in order to keep fares affordable and to keep routes available. 
There is also a need that I recognize for additional Amtrak operating 
assistance.
  I do appreciate the increased funding for the capital funding of the 
Northeast corridor. And if we can get over the hump of operating 
assistance for Amtrak for the time that is necessary to get that 
Northeast corridor capital funding in place, then we should be able to 
see Amtrak's recovery. In the meantime, this bill continues our 
commitment to the capital needs for the electrification of the 
Northeast corridor, which I think is very important. I urge support for 
this legislation in its entirety.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time and for the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with him.
  It is my understanding that there is in the report accompanying H.R. 
2169 language relating to the Belford Ferry in Middletown Township, NJ. 
This language may condition the release of funds by the Secretary of 
Transportation for this project. The conditions set forth in the report 
would appear to prevent the Secretary of Transportation from releasing 
any funds for the Belford Ferry project until a demonstration of 
adequate ridership is made and the existence of a willing operator is 
found. Any delay in funding for the project, I believe, will have a 
negative impact upon my constituents who seek alternative means of 
travel to New York City.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAPPAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. There is language relating 
to the Belford Ferry project in the report.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to certainly inform my 
colleagues that the county of Monmouth, which is the county that is 
host to this proposed ferry, is, in fact, a willing operator and will 
subcontract for the Belford Ferry project and that a study on adequate 
demand and ridership has already been completed by the Monmouth County 
Department of Planning. Furthermore, with respect to adequate 
ridership, the Federal Highway Administration indicates that it will 
defer to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assessment. These conditions 
having been met Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why the Secretary of 
Transportation should withhold approval of Federal aid for the Belford 
Ferry project in Middletown.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would concur that these studies have been completed and we checked on 
them just the other day. Adequate demand for the ferry and ridership 
for the Belford Ferry has been established and the Federal Highway 
Administration considers the county of Monmouth the willing operator 
for the Belford Ferry project. Based on informal discussions that we 
have had, not in writing but discussions, I believe that the conditions 
in the report have been met; and if that is the case, there would be no 
reason for further delay of the project.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clarification, I ask the 
gentleman if there is anything in the bill or report language that 
could further delay this project based upon the information that has 
been provided to the gentleman?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the bill which would 
require any other delays or studies.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman believes we are in 
agreement that the concerns expressed in the report have been 
addressed, may I have his commitment to clarify this issue in the 
conference report?
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will continue to yield, before I answer, 
if I could defer to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAPPAS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am not totally familiar with the project 
myself and with what the problems are, but there has been some concern 
over this project by Members on our side. I would just for my own point 
of view want to keep the reservation open to be able to visit with 
Members of our side who have had concerns.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would want to visit with the gentleman and the chairman of the 
committee before conference is finalized, see if we cannot work this 
out to the satisfaction of everyone.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, if my memory serves 
me, the gentleman believes that the concerns expressed in the report 
have been addressed and he sought my commitment to clarify this issue 
in the conference report. Based on talking to Mr. Sabo, I can provide 
the gentleman my assurance, we will also talk to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Pallone, but I will work with the gentleman to resolve his 
concerns regarding the Belford Ferry project. I am aware of the traffic 
and the transportation and the need to get into New York.
  The gentleman has approached me. I understand the gentleman was going 
to offer an amendment and that is not necessary so; yes, I will work 
with the gentleman with regard to that project. I appreciate him 
bringing it to our attention. I understand and I want to assure him 
after talking to the Federal Highway Administration what the gentleman 
said is accurate.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I spoke with my colleague from New Jersey 
earlier today. I certainly appreciate and understand his concerns. I 
happen to believe, by the information that I have received both by the 
county of Monmouth, the township of Middletown, the various 
correspondence, copies of correspondence that I have received from the 
various State and Federal agencies, that these specific concerns that 
were included in this report language have, in fact, been addressed, 
that there is adequate ridership that has been identified, there are in 
fact three or four willing, able operators that are able to fulfill 
this task, if given the opportunity. Harry Larrison, who is the 
freeholder director of Monmouth County, supports this. I thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their support.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of 
asking for anything in this bill but simply asking for the Members to 
take note of what is happening here.
  At a time when all of our other bills have been so partisan, 
contentious, destructive of the comity of this House, we have a bill 
that sailed through committee, that is going to sail through this floor 
in just the way that our subcommittee chairman and ranking member and 
the Chairman and ranking member of the full Committee would like every 
appropriations bill to go through.
  So I would hope that the members of the Committee on Rules and the 
Members of the majority leadership would take note of what is happening 
today, what happens when you treat every Member with respect and 
evenhandedness.
  This bill deserves to be passed overwhelmingly. It is a fair bill. It 
is respectful of every Member in this body. The results are clear.
  I would hope for the sake of the chairmen of the other subcommittees 
that we could have more bills like this.

[[Page H5635]]

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 
2169. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf], the chairman. He has been unfailingly kind to me, met with me. 
This is a wonderful project that I have in this bill. I just want to 
thank him for his kindness and to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] also.
  This bill today continues the subcommittee's tradition of supporting 
West Side Hillsboro light rail project. I am very delighted to report 
to all of my colleagues that after this year only 1 year more of 
funding will be required to complete the West Side project. As the 
subcommittee is well aware, this light rail project has the greatest 
and the broadest support in Oregon.
  Twice the voters have voted to tax themselves in order to support 
light rail. Voters support light rail because they are aware that it 
works so well there because we have these wonderful unique land use 
laws. Working together we have created viability and livability in this 
region. The West Side project is almost 75 percent complete. It is on 
time. It is on budget. It is thanks to this committee that it is those 
things.
  Additionally I would very much like to thank the subcommittee for 
providing $146,500 in Coast Guard funds for the maritime Fire and 
Safety Association in Washington and Oregon. This association is an 
excellent example of a partnership between the private and the public 
sector. It brings together the people of the Columbia River into this 
maritime and commercial center. It provides public safety, enhances 
environmental protection. It enhances fire, oil and toxic spill 
response, training, equipment, program, administration activities.

                              {time}  1515

  And this modest sum that the bill has for this project really makes 
the difference.
  So on behalf of the citizens of the Portland area and all the folks 
in Oregon who will use this project, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and the 
entire committee, and urge support.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include my two 
distinguished colleagues from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Stupak, as 
part of this colloquy with our other colleague from Michigan Mr. 
Knollenberg, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of 
the House Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Wolf.
  Mr. Chairman, our State of Michigan and other donor States have been 
quite upset at our mistreatment under the funding allocation formulas 
as established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 
or ISTEA.
  As a member of both the Michigan delegation and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I am concerned that nothing in this 
bill lock our committee or State into using the funding allocation 
formulas in current law.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr.  Barcia, and, obviously, my other 
colleagues from Michigan Mr.  Stupak, and Ms. Stabenow, now that, as a 
member of the Michigan delegation, I share their concern for the 
funding equity in the upcoming reauthorization of our Nation's 
transportation program.
  As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I also want to assure 
them that nothing in this bill will prevent the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure from addressing the issue of funding 
equity within the reauthorization, and I thank the gentleman for 
inquiring.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan is correct, 
nothing in H.R. 2169 would prevent the authorizing committee from 
changing the funding allocation formulas for fiscal year 1998 or any 
year thereafter.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman that this bill in 
no way would affect the ability of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to address the funding formulas under ISTEA.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen 
for this colloquy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. It has been a pleasure to serve as vice chairman with the 
gentleman from Virginia in crafting what I think is a responsible bill.
  There are three elements I would mention. We have talked a lot about 
a balanced budget. A balanced budget depends on economic growth. That 
is the key to it. And the key to economic growth is transportation: 
air, highways, rail. This bill addresses those very well because they 
are the arteries of a nation's economic well-being.
  Second is safety. We are all concerned about safety; highway safety, 
air transport safety. This bill has a lot of good features that impact 
on highway safety; innovative programs, 18 of them to be exact, for 
increased air safety. So I think that, too, recommends it highly to 
Members.
  And, third, it is a people bill. We have passed a welfare reform bill 
which envisions people going to work. To go to work they need mass 
transit, and this bill recognizes that need throughout the Nation by 
providing funds for mass transit.
  Those are all three elements that make this bill responsible. I 
strongly urge the Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], who serves on the committee.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to say that this is not a perfect bill but it is 
about as perfect as we can get it.
  If it were perfect, it would have some of the 15 things I requested 
in it that I did not get. But this is a body compromise, a body trying 
to do what we can do with the limited amount of money that we have 
allocated to us.
  There should be more money for the Coast Guard, there should be less 
money for Amtrak, there should be more money for my particular 
projects, there should be more money for FAA. But, nevertheless, the 
committee has done an outstanding job of crafting a bill that gives the 
best we can to all of these good agencies.
  So I commend the gentleman. I still disagree with him on 
demonstration projects, but he is right and I am wrong. If it ever 
comes into being, however, I want to be first in that line to get my 
demonstration projects funded. I commend him and urge support of this 
bill.
  I am extremely distressed about Amtrak. Amtrak is terminally ill and 
we have to recognize that. By continuing to feed the system morphine we 
are only prolonging the inevitable. Still, I suggest at this time that 
Members vote for the bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to refer 
Members to page 31, where the committee said the following in the 
report:

       In following up on the work of the National Civil Aviation 
     Review Commission over the coming months, and to help restore 
     the credibility and effectiveness of the agency, the 
     committee encourages the new administrator to establish an 
     informal working group composed of former FAA administrators 
     to advise her and the Secretary of Transportation regarding 
     the future direction and the need of policies of the agency.

[[Page H5636]]

      The committee believes the views of these former executives 
     could be invaluable in helping shape the agency's future.

  Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] 
for his help and efforts, and all the committee staff.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend Chairman 
Wolf and the ranking Democrat Mr. Sabo for brining a bill to the floor 
which will provide billions of dollars for vital transportation and 
infrastructure projects across the Nation. This measure will allow 
States and localities to begin much-needed construction and repair on 
highways, bridges, and mass transit systems.
  Transportation has always been vital to our economic prosperity and 
quality of life since our Nation's founding. From colonial post roads 
and canals that expanded our frontiers, the railroads and interstate 
highways that linked a growing country to the mass transit systems that 
made possible the development of our great cities.
  Transportation has opened new markets and enabled the quick 
economical movement of people and goods that has empowered our 
economy's growth. In fact, in my congressional district of Chicago, IL, 
the transportation arena has always been a vital segment of our 
lifestyle--with over 27 percent of one's income spent on 
transportation-related expenses.
  Further, well-paying, much-needed jobs are created when our 
transportation systems are revitalized. Finally, mass transit, commuter 
rail, and other forms of public transportation provide a way to work 
for millions of Chicago residents.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I must express my extreme concerns for the bill's 
funding levels for mass transit and the adverse effects they could have 
on my congressional district.
  As many businesses relocate to Chicago's suburbs--taking with them 
well-paying jobs--it is imperative that we continue to provide adequate 
funding for our public transportation systems. With the recent welfare 
to work mandates taking effect, it is also important that sufficient 
transportation services are available for these individuals.
  As a result of past actions by the Congress which cut transit funding 
by nearly 40 percent, the Chicago Transit Authority was recently forced 
to make draconian cutbacks in service. These service cuts affect the 
majority of all bus routes and significantly reduces CTA's late night 
owl service for both rail and bus routes. These service cuts were made 
in neighborhoods where many of the residents have no other 
transportation alternatives.
  Further, as many of you know, Chicago's EL is one of the oldest 
public rail systems in the country and is the cornerstone of our public 
transportation system. As this system continues to age, it cannot 
afford to loose precious capital funds that will result because of this 
measure.
  It is my hope that as this measure moves to the conference committee 
funding levels for mass transit will be increased thereby recognizing 
the transportation needs of our urban, low-income, senior, and disabled 
residents.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the increase 
for noise abatement programs for communities that are adversely 
affected by low flying airplane traffic. Last year, the Federal 
Government spent approximately $143 million, and this year's proposal 
is to spend $239 million. As airports continue to expand and air 
traffic continues to increase, it is clear we need to take steps to 
mitigate the resulting noise problems.
  Airport noise can ruin neighborhoods by destroying the peace to which 
people are entitled. With the programs funded in this legislation, 
families that reside in the busiest flight patterns can receive new 
doors, acoustic window, wall and ceiling modifications, insulation, air 
condition and ductwork, and electrical wiring. These benefits can make 
the difference between a daily experience of frustration and anxiety, 
or a higher quality of life where people can eat dinner in peace, talk 
on the telephone uninterrupted, and enjoy the homes for which they have 
worked so hard.
  Six communities in my district are in the flight pattern of Cleveland 
Hopkins International Airport. More needs to be done, therefore, it is 
important for the Federal Government to continue to fund noise 
abatement programs adequately. I urge my colleagues to support funding 
for noise abatement programs, and to work with a bipartisan coalition 
to support the highest funding possible coming out of the House-Senate 
conference committee.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my support for the 
fiscal year 1998 Transportation Act and to commend Chairman Wolf and 
ranking Member Sabo for their fine work on this important legislation.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the 
conditions of my support for a small part of this legislation--Federal 
funding of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky I-71 Corridor project.
  My support for all past, present, and future funds allocated from the 
Federal Transit Administration section 3 program to study, select and 
construct the locally preferred transportation alternative for the 
congested I-71 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky corridor is based on a 50-
50 match between local/State sources and the Federal Government. In 
light of our Federal budget crisis and the inability of the Federal 
Government to fund the bulk of construction costs for major 
transportation projects, State and local jurisdictions should cover a 
substantial part of the cost of any new project. Even more importantly, 
I believe requiring a strong level of local participation will ensure 
that local communities select the most cost-effective solution to the 
region's transportation problems. A 50-50 match ensures that the 
project makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit into the Record the text of a letter I 
received from the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments [OK], 
our regional transportation planning agency, which codifies the 
agreement reached between myself and OKI and clearly describes the 
intention of the local authorities to match the Federal money 
designated for this project.
  The text of the letter follows.
       On behalf of the I-71 Corridor Oversight Committee of the 
     Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI), 
     and the local communities that constitute its membership, we 
     thank you for your support of our funding requests for the 
     Northeast Corridor Project.
       This letter is provided in response to your request that we 
     address two matters in connection with the Project. First, 
     the issue of the local funding commitment is addressed. We 
     regret any past misunderstandings which may have contributed 
     to some confusion on this issue. Second, this letter explains 
     the method by which OKI's I-71 oversight Committee has 
     arrived at the cost estimates for the Project.
       The pending request to the House Appropriations 
     Subcommittee on Transportation for $500,000 in the Fiscal 
     Year 1998 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act to 
     reassess certain technologies in Northern Kentucky, and the 
     projected $600 million in federal funds (half of the 
     estimated $1.2 billion total project cost) needed for both 
     phases of construction of the locally preferred alternative 
     would be matched fifty percent by local funds. With respect 
     to the Fiscal Year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act 
     approving $3 million for the preliminary engineering and 
     environmental impact statement, the local governments commit 
     to a fifty percent local match, twenty percent of which will 
     be put up at the time our funding is drawn down and the 
     remaining thirty percent of which would be contributed to the 
     Project during Fiscal Year 1999 when construction gets under 
     way. Local funds are not currently available to match the 
     Fiscal Year 1997 funds on a 50/50 basis, which is why we are 
     proposing to spread the match as described. Had we understood 
     that any of the funding for the study phase of the Project 
     was to be a fifty, rather than twenty, percent match, we 
     would have budgeted for that additional $2.4 million.
       The second issue on which you have requested clarification 
     concerns the manner in which cost estimates for the Project 
     are prepared. OKI has retained a nationally acclaimed team of 
     consultants headed by Burgess & Niple Limited and includes 
     BRW, Inc. to provide the technical assistance on the major 
     investment analysis, engineering, and other phases of the 
     Project. BRW has assisted other locales where similar 
     transportation improvement projects have been implemented, 
     including Portland Burnside LRT Line, Portland Westside LRT 
     Line, Houston Busway, Salt Lake City LRT South Line, 
     University of Minnesota Busway, I-10 HOV in Phoenix, Los 
     Angeles Blue Line LRT, Calgary LRT System, and the Newark 
     City Subway Extension and Vehicle Base Facility. OKI relies 
     heavily upon the expertise of our consultants in arriving at 
     the best available cost estimates, as each phase of the 
     Project demands. In addition, you should be aware that all of 
     the technologies we have considered are operating in other 
     parts of the country, and, therefore, are ``Known 
     quantities'' with respect to estimating their cost. We share 
     your desire that our estimates be as precise as possible and 
     will continue to make every effort to ensure such precision, 
     despite certain unavoidable ambiguities that are inherent in 
     planning and designing a project of this magnitude.
       Again, we appreciate your support and assistance, without 
     which we would not have progressed this far. Please feel free 
     to forward this letter to the relevant Committees for 
     inclusion in their official record of the Project funding 
     requests, and call us or the OKI staff if you need any 
     additional information.
           Sincerely,
     Larry Crisenbery,
                                                        President.
     Bernard J. Moorman,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2169, 
fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations. I want to thank Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Sabo, and every member of the Transportation Subcommittee for 
their hard work in crafting an excellent bill.
  I am delighted that the bill before the House today continues the 
subcommittee's tradition

[[Page H5637]]

of supporting the Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail project. H.R. 2169 
provides $63.4 million for this vital project, the full amount 
recommended by the administration in the Federal Transit 
Administration's 3(j) report earlier this year. I am ever more 
delighted to report that, after this year, only 1 year of funding will 
be required to complete the Westside project on time and on budget.
  As the subcommittee is well aware, the Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail 
project continues to enjoy broad support. Voters in the metropolitan 
area have demonstrated their support by voting to tax themselves twice 
to support light rail, once in 1990 and again in 1994. In each 
instance, these votes occurred while voters were approving antitax 
ballot measures. Voters support light rail in the Portland area because 
they realize that it works in conjunction with Oregon's unique land-use 
laws and is critical to the future vitality and livability of the 
region. In addition, there is already more than $90 million in 
investment along the westside corridor as major corporations, such as 
INTEL, anticipate the project's opening.
  The Westside project is over 75 percent complete and 10 miles of 
track are in place. Seven of the Nation's first low floor light rail 
cars are in testing and the first segment of the line is expected to 
open for service this year. Oregonians are clearly excited about the 
progress of the project, and are anxious to reap the benefits of this 
public investment through reduced congestion, improved air quality, 
economic development, and maintaining the quality of life that we 
treasure.
  Additionally, I am also delighted that the subcommittee's bill 
provides $146,500 in Coast Guard funds for the Maritime Fire and Safety 
Association [MFSA] in Washington and Oregon. The MFSA has been an 
excellent example of partnership between public and private interests, 
bringing together all of the people who use the Columbia River as a 
maritime and commercial center. The MFSA facilitates maritime commerce 
while protecting public safety and enhancing environmental protection 
of the lower Columbia River. Among other initiatives, the MFSA enhances 
fire, oil and toxic spill response communication, training, equipment, 
and program administration activities. The modest funds provided to the 
MFSA by this bill yield enormous dividends for the entire lower 
Columbia basin.
  On behalf of the citizens of the Portland area, I want to thank Mr. 
Wolf and the entire subcommittee for their support, and urge all my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2169.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendments specified in section 2 of House 
Resolution 189 are adopted and the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to express my concern that the bill we 
have before us does not have adequate funding for Amtrak in the coming 
year.
  Amtrak is in an extremely tenuous position in the short term. The 
railroad has invested heavily in developing high-speed rail for the 
Northeast corridor, and once these new trains are in place, the high-
speed trains, we have to make sure that there is significant revenue in 
order for the system to operate efficiently.
  Amtrak has borrowed heavily to make the investment in high-speed 
rail, and the railroad, without support from Congress over the next 2 
years and an adequate amount of money, will be overwhelmed by that 
debt. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, has 
recognized this bind but has left the railroad $61 million short from 
what the President has requested to support the program.
  Let me just quote from the statement of the administration policy for 
the transportation appropriations bill:

       The administration is deeply concerned about the level of 
     funding provided for Amtrak. The Federal operating subsidy 
     supports Amtrak's day-to-day operations. Even at the funding 
     levels proposed by the President, Amtrak will be able to 
     remain solvent only by further increasing revenues and 
     reducing costs. If Congress appropriates an amount for 
     operating grants that is less than the $344 million requested 
     by the President, it is questionable whether Amtrak would 
     have cash reserves sufficient to meet its obligations. In 
     light of these considerations, we strongly urge the House to 
     provide Amtrak with operating grants of $344 million in 
     fiscal year 1998.

  Mr. Chairman, we have fallen short of this hurdle for Amtrak, and I 
am concerned that because of the relatively small shortfall this year, 
we are jeopardizing a realistically promising plan for Amtrak's self-
sufficiency by the year 2002.
  All this occurs at a time when Amtrak has begun to see the benefits 
of its reengineering and cost-cutting efforts of the past 3 years. To 
date, Amtrak has made nearly $400 million in bottom line improvements 
on an annualized basis to increase the efficiency of its rolling stock, 
eliminated poorly performing routes, reduced head counts, retired old 
equipment, reinvested in new equipment, including high-speed rail, and 
improved its operating ratio. This was done at a time of declining 
Federal support.
  For fiscal year 1995, passenger related revenues were $874 million, 
last year they climbed to $901 million, and they are expected to be 
$977 million in the current year. In addition, despite operating fewer 
trains, ridership is moving up for the first time in several years. 
Travel industry projections indicate that the economy and travel expect 
to remain strong through 1998. This is fairly remarkable. Amtrak's 
ridership is up nearly 2.5 percent at a time when airline travel is up 
0.2 percent to 1.2 percent for the Nation's four largest airlines. And 
revenue is up this year over the previous year by 9 percent.
  In late 1999, Amtrak will introduce North America's first high-speed 
rail service, which will generate nearly $150 million in net bottom 
line improvements. Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on to tell my 
colleagues the good things that are happening with Amtrak, but it needs 
the Federal operating subsidies.
  Next week the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
will mark up a sweeping Amtrak reform and reauthorization bill which 
should generate further cost savings for Amtrak. At a time when things 
seem to be turning around for Amtrak, we would be unwise to underfund 
their operating needs.
  I would hope that we could work with the Senate to restore the 
funding so that Amtrak can continue to reduce its dependency on Federal 
support, strengthen its infrastructure, and retain a viable national 
route structure.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Maryland that I 
am really committed to Amtrak; I want Amtrak to do very well.
  I think people should understand, so when they think about this bill, 
that the committee mark has provided $30 million more for Amtrak than 
enacted in fiscal year 1997. This bill is actually $3.5 million above 
what the administration requested.
  The subcommittee has provided $202 million for operating expenses in 
fiscal year 1998, which is the same amount as requested by the 
administration. Funding for capital improvements is $260 million, which 
is $14.55 million more than requested by the administration and $36.55 
million more than last year.
  Also, too, the gentleman, both of us have a strong interest in the 
Amtrak corridor because that is, in essence, the flagship for Amtrak. 
By making this work very well, it will help the entire system. And the 
subcommittee provided $250 million for the Northeast corridor, which is 
$50 million more than requested and $75 million more than was in 1975.
  So for Amtrak, the Northeast corridor, we are actually putting more 
on it. We hope to see that high-speed rail moving up and down there as 
quickly as possible.
  I can assure the gentleman, and I know the gentleman from Minnesota

[[Page H5638]]

[Mr. Sabo], having sat through all the hearings, knows that I want to 
do everything we can to protect it. The problem is, though, last year 
the Congress provided a significant amount of money to keep open a 
number of routes that Amtrak wanted to close down. We lost that money 
because four of those six routes are now gone. They are gone.
  In addition, Amtrak actually lost more money because they could have 
taken the train sets from those routes and use them on more productive 
routes. But I want the gentleman to know that many areas were actually 
significantly higher.
  I believe the opportunity for Amtrak, with monopoles in the Northeast 
corridor, aggressive mail delivery, and a lot of other opportunities, 
that that can be the flagship. I am committed to maintaining and having 
a national rail system because I just think it is important for a first 
class country to have a first class system.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership in this area. I know of the gentleman's commitment to rail 
service in this country and the importance to the Northeast corridor as 
well as to other regions of our Nation.
  The gentleman has provided some significant help for Amtrak, and that 
is appreciated. I think the area of major concern right now is the 
operating issue and whether there are adequate operating subsidies in 
this budget in order to meet the transition until the high-speed trains 
are on line.
  As the gentleman knows, Amtrak has incurred some additional capital 
debt obligations through its borrowing that now must be met through 
Amtrak, and I hope that we can continue to work together to make sure 
that there are adequate resources during this transitional period.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I hope we can. And I am sure the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and I will be able to work 
something out. I hope the gentleman will take a look at that, and I am 
going to ask the staff to show how retirement payments were being paid 
by Amtrak. And there are some problems, but I am committed to working 
with Amtrak and I am doubly committed to making the Northeast corridor 
the flagship which will help bring Amtrak a lot more money.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman very much.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE I

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $60,009,000, of which not to exceed $40,000 shall be 
     available as the Secretary may determine for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, there may be credited to this 
     appropriation up to $1,000,000 in funds received in user 
     fees: Provided further, That no more than $606,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Acquisition and Grants 
     Management, solely for department-wide grants management 
     activities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act or otherwise made available may be 
     used to maintain custody of airline tariffs that are already 
     available for public and departmental access at no cost; to 
     secure them against detection, alteration, or tampering; and 
     open to inspection by the Department.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $5,574,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, and development 
     activities, to remain available until expended, $4,400,000.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to 
     exceed $121,800,000, shall be paid from appropriations made 
     available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That 
     such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to 
     entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the above limitation on operating expenses 
     shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That 
     no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the 
     Department shall be transferred to the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center without the approval of the 
     agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no 
     assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the budgetary resources provided for ``Small Community 
     Air Service'' in Public Law 101-508 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $38,600,000 are rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
the paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 4, 
line 1, through line 6. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI 
because it rescinds $38.6 million in airport and airway trust fund 
contract authority, not general fund appropriations, for small 
community air service.
  Airport and airway trust fund contract authority, while a form of 
direct spending, is legislative in nature, and rescinding such 
authority is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations. This rescission constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. No, Mr. Chairman. I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The 
provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, as authorized by 
     49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $15,000,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $2,900,000, of which $2,635,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for 
     business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $2,708,000,000, of which $300,000,000 shall be 
     available for defense-related activities and $25,000,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That the number of aircraft on hand at any one time 
     shall not exceed two hundred and twelve, exclusive of 
     aircraft and parts stored to meet future attrition: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be available for pay or administrative 
     expenses in connection with shipping commissioners in the 
     United States: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act shall be available for expenses incurred 
     for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C. 12109, except to the 
     extent fees are collected from yacht owners and credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That the Commandant 
     shall reduce both military and civilian employment levels for 
     the purpose of complying with Executive Order No. 12839: 
     Provided further, That $34,300,000 of the funds provided 
     under this heading for increased drug interdiction activities 
     are not available for obligation until the Director, Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy: (1) reviews the specific 
     activities and associated costs and benefits proposed by the 
     Coast Guard; (2) compares those activities to other drug 
     interdiction efforts government-wide; and (3) certifies, in 
     writing, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     that such expenditures represent the best investment relative 
     to other options: Provided further, That should the Director, 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy decline to make such 
     certification, after notification in writing to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Director may 
     transfer, at his discretion, up to $34,300,000 of funds 
     provided herein for Coast Guard drug interdiction activities 
     to any other entity of the Federal

[[Page H5639]]

     Government for drug interdiction activities: Provided 
     further, That up to $615,000 in user fees collected pursuant 
     to section 1111 of Public Law 104-324 shall be credited to 
     this appropriation as offsetting collections in fiscal year 
     1998.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, 
     shore facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including 
     equipment related thereto, $379,000,000, of which 
     $20,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund; of which $191,650,000 shall be available to 
     acquire, repair, renovate or improve vessels, small boats 
     and related equipment, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002; $33,900,000 shall be available to acquire new 
     aircraft and increase aviation capability, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000; $47,050,000 shall be 
     available for other equipment, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000; $59,400,000 shall be available for 
     shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000; and $47,000,000 
     shall be available for personnel compensation and benefits 
     and related costs, to remain available until September 30, 
     1999: Provided, That funds received from the sale of HU-25 
     aircraft shall be credited to this appropriation for the 
     purpose of acquiring new aircraft and increasing aviation 
     capacity: Provided further, That the Commandant may 
     dispose of surplus real property by sale or lease and the 
     proceeds shall be credited to this appropriation, of which 
     not more than $9,000,000 shall be credited as offsetting 
     collections to this account, to be available for the 
     purposes of this account: Provided further, That the 
     amount herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be 
     reduced by such amount so as to result in a final fiscal 
     year 1998 appropriation from the General Fund of 
     $370,000,000: Provided further, That any proceeds from the 
     sale or lease of Coast Guard surplus real property in 
     excess of $9,000,000 shall be retained and remain 
     available until expended, but shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 1998.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $16,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for 
     payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. 
     ch. 55); $645,696,000.

                            Reserve Training


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $67,000,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $20,000,000 of funds made available under 
     this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating 
     expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast 
     Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $19,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to this 
     appropriation funds received from State and local 
     governments, other public authorities, private sources, and 
     foreign countries, for expenses incurred for research, 
     development, testing, and evaluation.

                              Boat Safety


                     (aquatic resources trust fund)

       For payment of necessary expenses incurred for recreational 
     boating safety assistance under Public Law 92-75, as amended, 
     $35,000,000, to be derived from the Boat Safety Account and 
     to remain available until expended.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities 
     and the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, and carrying out the provisions of subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, or other 
     provisions of law authorizing the obligation of funds for 
     similar programs of airport and airway development or 
     improvement, lease or purchase of four passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $5,300,000,000, of which 
     notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 48104(c), $3,425,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any regulation that would promulgate new aviation 
     user fees not specifically authorized by law after the date 
     of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That there may be 
     credited to this appropriation funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the provision of agency services, including receipts for the 
     maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and 
     for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates, 
     including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates, 
     or for test related thereto, or for processing major repair 
     or alteration forms: Provided further, That funds may be used 
     to enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-
     setting organization to assist in the development of aviation 
     safety standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station 
     in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     may be used to support the operations and activities of the 
     Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 10, 
line 20, beginning with ``of which'' through ``fund'' on line 22. This 
provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it alters the funding 
formula established under the airport improvement program by 
appropriating $3.425 billion out of the airport and airway fund for 
FAA.
  The correct figure should be approximately $1.88 billion if the 
formula under existing law is followed. The added funding for 
operations has the effect of changing existing law and it, therefore, 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of the 
House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the point of order can extend 
only to the specific part of the paragraph left unprotected and, as 
such, it is sustained.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       On page 10, line 20 of the bill, insert the following after 
     the sum ``$5,300,000,000,'': of which $1,880,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the point of order just sustained by the 
Chair eliminates all aviation trust fund support for FAA operations. I 
believe it is the intent of the authorizing committee to ensure only 
that the legislative cap on trust fund spending for FAA operations is 
upheld and not to totally eliminate the trust fund contribution.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the subcommittee, and I support 
this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more to say, then, because 
it is a technical amendment and is supported, I think, by the majority 
and minority.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the Members' attention on page 
6, line 12, through line 18, this is an area of the appropriations bill 
of which I have talked to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the 
chairman, about

[[Page H5640]]

that I have some strong reservations on. What I would like to do is to 
read the three areas of the bill that I have strong reservations and 
then speak directly as to what they are.
  No. 1, line 5, first of all, the Committee on Appropriations has 
taken $34 million that was directed to the Coast Guard interdiction 
program and has effectively given it to the drug czar to determine the 
best area where this money should be spent.
  The authority given to the drug czar is the following, that is the 
director's office of the National Drug Control Policy. This is the 
authority given to Mr. McCaffrey. No. 1, Mr. McCaffrey will review the 
specific activities and associated costs and benefit proposed by the 
Coast Guard.
  I think those reviews of those activities and the cost and benefits 
have already been reviewed by the authorizing committee, the Coast 
Guard committee and the transportation. No. 2 compares those activities 
to other drug interdiction efforts government-wide. This was always 
done with various other authorizing committees.
  But within that, what I have the most disagreement with is No. 3. No. 
3 certifies that the drug czar will certify in writing to the House and 
the Senate Committees on Appropriations, not to the authorizing 
committee, but to the Committee on Appropriations, that such 
expenditures represent the best investment relative to other options 
provided further that, should the director, Office of National Drug 
Control Policy decline to make such certification after notification in 
writing to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the 
director may transfer, at his discretion, up to $34 million of funds 
provided to the Coast Guard to any other government entity to use this 
amount of money.
  I have some reservations about reporting to the Committee on 
Appropriations, as opposed to the authorizing committees, this waiver. 
This part of the bill could have been struck in a point of order, but 
it was protected by waiver by the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McCaffrey, in a letter to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to Mr. Pena wanted, this is the drug czar now, wanted 
$34 million sent to the Coast Guard for this interdiction part. The 
Coast Guard, in the whole area of the Nation's drug problem, in the 
last few years, in my judgment, has been engaged in a very positive way 
to drastically reduce the number of drugs coming into the United 
States.
  Now, lastly, Mr. Chairman, I think when we begin to pick apart in the 
various levels of the appropriations process and the authorizing 
process an agency such as the Coast Guard, I think we lose sight of the 
rather large responsibility, increasing responsibility that we give to 
the Coast Guard every single year.
  If the Members will just consider this particular fact: On any 1 day, 
any one point in time on any given day, every Coast Guard jet that is 
assigned an area, every Coast Guard helicopter, every Coast Guard 
cutter, every Coast Guard buoy tender, every Coast Guard boat has the 
following responsibilities: Drug interdiction, determining who are 
illegal immigrants, boarding hostile steamship lines with hostile 
immigrants prepared to wreak havoc, finding boats where people have had 
accidents, determining the difference between shad, salmon, yellowfin 
tuna, bluefin tuna, striped bass, when the regulations for fishing are 
the international standards for boaters' safety, for vessel safety, for 
oil pollution. Every single Coast Guard person has this and more as 
their responsibility.
  Drug interdiction is just one of these things. And what the Coast 
Guard is doing now as far as drug interdiction is concerned, they are 
working in the international arena and they have international 
cooperation, and the U.S. Coast Guard is seen as a leader in this area.
  So I would just request, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] 
and myself have had some very good discussions on this prior to this 
statement, but I think it is important for us to realize the increasing 
responsibility of the Coast Guard.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest]. I admire him about as much as I do anybody in the 
body. And we will talk, and if we are able to keep this language in, I 
will change it to make sure that the report goes to the authorizing 
committee too at the same time.
  We just want to make sure that the money is wisely spent. I am very 
concerned about the drug problem coming into the country. I have very 
strong views about it. We have had a number of drug conferences in my 
district. I just want to make sure that it is really wisely and well 
spent.
  Second, by doing this, we put a great responsibility on the drug czar 
and also on the Coast Guard. But I think I understand what the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] says. And again, if we can, we 
will make sure that the report goes to the gentleman's committee and 
the Coast Guard.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. First, I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and I think he knows that. I do 
look forward to working with him on this particular issue on page 6, 
but I look forward to working with him on this issue in a very 
comprehensive way so that we can ensure a reduction in the drug problem 
in the United States. And all the Federal agencies are working very 
closely together to do a better job.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill 
through page 65, line 6, be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 65, line 6, is as 
follows:

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or 
     purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental 
     facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including 
     initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; 
     engineering and service testing, including construction of 
     test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease 
     or grant; and construction and furnishing of quarters and 
     related accommodations for officers and employees of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration stationed at remote 
     localities where such accommodations are not available; and 
     the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds 
     available under this head; to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, $1,875,000,000, of which $1,655,890,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2000, and of which 
     $219,110,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1998: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
     navigation facilities.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $185,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2000: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated 
     or expended for the ``Flight 2000'' Program.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and for noise 
     compatibility planning and programs as authorized under 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 
     of title 49, United States Code, and under other law 
     authorizing such obligations, $1,600,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the obligations for which are in excess of 
     $1,700,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 for grants-in-aid for 
     airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs, notwithstanding section 47117(h) of 
     title 49, United States Code.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures and

[[Page H5641]]

     investments, within the limits of funds available pursuant to 
     49 U.S.C. 44307, and in accordance with section 104 of the 
     Government Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 
     9104), as may be necessary in carrying out the program for 
     aviation insurance activities under chapter 443 of title 49, 
     United States Code.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     activities under this heading during fiscal year 1998.

                 Administrative Services Franchise Fund

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available to 
     establish new activities under the Administrative Services 
     Franchise Fund during fiscal year 1998.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration, operation, including 
     motor carrier safety program operations, and research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $510,313,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That $202,226,000 
     of the amount provided herein shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2000.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $21,500,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 1998.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursements for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $20,800,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                      Right-of-Way Revolving Fund


                      (limitation on direct loans)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds under this head are available for 
     obligations for right-of-way acquisition during fiscal year 
     1998.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 31102, $85,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $85,325,000 for ``Motor Carrier Safety 
     Grants''.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, and 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, $74,492,000, of 
     which $40,674,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 
     49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement 
     pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the 
     three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
     resistance) already in effect.

                        Operations and Research


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 23 
     U.S.C. 403 and section 2006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), 
     to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, $72,415,000, of 
     which $49,520,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 153, 402, 408, and 410, and chapter 
     303 of title 49, United States Code, to remain available 
     until expended, $186,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding subsection 
     2009(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991, none of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 1998, are in excess of 
     $186,500,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     410, and chapter 303 of title 49, U.S.C., of which 
     $140,200,000 shall be for ``State and community highway 
     safety grants'', $2,300,000 shall be for the ``National 
     Driver Register'', $9,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant 
     Protection Incentive Grants'', subject to authorization, and 
     $35,000,000 shall be for section 410 ``Alcohol-impaired 
     driving counter-measures programs'': Provided further, That 
     none of these funds shall be used for construction, 
     rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings 
     and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or 
     structures: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,268,000 
     of the funds made available for section 402 may be available 
     for administering ``State and community highway safety 
     grants'': Provided further, That not to exceed $150,000 of 
     the funds made available for section 402 may be available for 
     administering the highway safety grants authorized by section 
     1003(a)(7) of Public Law 102-240: Provided further, That not 
     to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for section 
     410 ``Alcohol-impaired driving counter-measures programs'' 
     shall be available for technical assistance to the States.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $19,434,000, of 
     which $1,389,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of a program making 
     commitments to guarantee new loans under the Emergency Rail 
     Services Act of 1970, as amended, and no new commitments to 
     guarantee loans under section 211(a) or 211(h) of the 
     Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, as amended, shall 
     be made: Provided further, That, as part of the Washington 
     Union Station transaction in which the Secretary assumed the 
     first deed of trust on the property and, where the Union 
     Station Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is 
     obligated to make payments on such deed of trust on the 
     Secretary's behalf, including payments on and after September 
     30, 1988, the Secretary is authorized to receive such 
     payments directly from the Union Station Redevelopment 
     Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged for the 
     first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of 
     trust with those funds: Provided further, That such 
     additional sums as may be necessary for payment on the first 
     deed of trust may be advanced by the Administrator from 
     unobligated balances available to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, to be reimbursed from payments received from 
     the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds for rental payments to the 
     General Services Administration provided herein shall be used 
     to pay the expenses of headquarters' employees outside of the 
     Nassif building after January 1, 1998.

                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, $56,967,000, of which $5,511,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated under this heading are available for the 
     reimbursement of out-of-state travel and per diem costs 
     incurred by employees of State governments directly 
     supporting the Federal railroad safety program, including 
     regulatory development and compliance-related activities.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $21,038,000, to remain available until expended.

                 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program

       For necessary expenses related to Northeast Corridor 
     improvements authorized by title VII of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended 
     (45 U.S.C. 851 et seq.) and 49 U.S.C. 24909, $250,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That no new loan guarantee commitments shall be 
     made during fiscal year 1998.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
     studies, corridor planning, development, demonstration, and 
     implementation, $18,395,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds under this head may be made 
     available for grants to States for high-speed rail corridor 
     design, feasibility studies, environmental analyses, and 
     track and signal improvements.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $10,000,000, to be matched by the 
     State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar for dollar 
     basis and to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     as a condition of accepting such

[[Page H5642]]

     funds, the Providence and Worcester (P&W) Railroad shall 
     enter into an agreement with the Secretary to reimburse 
     Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad Administration, on a 
     dollar for dollar basis, up to the first $23,000,000 in 
     damages resulting from the legal action initiated by the P&W 
     Railroad under its existing contracts with Amtrak relating to 
     the provision of vertical clearances between Davisville and 
     Central Falls in excess of those required for present freight 
     operations.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104, $543,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $202,000,000 shall be available for 
     operating losses, $81,000,000 shall be available for 
     mandatory passenger rail service payments, and $260,000,000 
     shall be for capital improvements: Provided, That none of the 
     funds herein appropriated for mandatory railroad retirement 
     payments shall be used for payments for National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation employees: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     operating losses in excess of the amounts specifically 
     provided herein: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided for capital improvements may be transferred to 
     operating losses to pay for debt service interest unless 
     specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of 
     this Act: Provided further, That the incurring of any 
     obligation or commitment by the Corporation for the purchase 
     of capital improvements prohibited by this Act or not 
     expressly provided for in an appropriations Act shall be 
     deemed a violation of 31 U.S.C. 1341: Provided further, That 
     funding under this head for capital improvements shall not be 
     made available before July 1, 1998: Provided further, That 
     the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration 
     shall submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations detailing the financial status 
     of, and future business forecasts for, the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation as well as recommendations for reducing 
     operating losses in the near-term and Federal financial 
     support in the long-term: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds herein appropriated shall be used for lease or purchase 
     of passenger motor vehicles or for the hire of vehicle 
     operators for any officer or employee, other than the 
     president of the Corporation, excluding the lease of 
     passenger motor vehicles for those officers or employees 
     while in official travel status.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $45,738,000: Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49, 
     United States Code, in an aggregate amount that exceeds 
     $15,000,000.

                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 
     5310(a)(2), 5311, and 5336, to remain available until 
     expended, $290,000,000: Provided, That no more than 
     $2,500,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for 
     these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this head for formula grants, no more than $200,000,000 
     may be used for operating assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5336(d): 
     Provided further, That the limitation on operating assistance 
     provided under this heading shall, for urbanized areas of 
     less than 200,000 in population, be no less than seventy-five 
     percent of the amount of operating assistance such areas are 
     eligible to receive under Public Law 103-331: Provided 
     further, That in the distribution of the limitation provided 
     under this heading to urbanized areas that had a population 
     under the 1990 census of 1,000,000 or more, the Secretary 
     shall direct each such area to give priority consideration to 
     the impact of reductions in operating assistance on smaller 
     transit authorities operating within the area and to consider 
     the needs and resources of such transit authorities when the 
     limitation is distributed among all transit authorities 
     operating in the area.

                   University Transportation Centers

       For necessary expenses for university transportation 
     centers as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5317(b), to remain 
     available until expended, $6,000,000.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses for transit planning and research as 
     authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5311, 5313, 5314, and 5315, to 
     remain available until expended, $86,000,000, of which 
     $39,500,000 shall be for activities under Metropolitan 
     Planning (49 U.S.C. 5303); $4,500,000 for activities under 
     Rural Transit Assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $8,250,000 
     for activities under State Planning and Research (49 U.S.C. 
     5313(b)); $22,500,000 for activities under National Planning 
     and Research (49 U.S.C. 5314); $8,250,000 for activities 
     under Transit Cooperative Research (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)); and 
     $3,000,000 for National Transit Institute (49 U.S.C. 5315).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(a), $2,210,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That $2,210,000,000 shall be paid from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to the Federal 
     Transit Administration's formula grants account.

                          Discretionary Grants


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 for 
     grants under the contract authority in 49 U.S.C. 5338(b): 
     Provided, That there shall be available for fixed guideway 
     modernization, $800,000,000; there shall be available for the 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities, $400,000,000; and there shall be available for 
     new fixed guideway systems $800,000,000, to be available as 
     follows:
       $44,600,000 for the Atlanta-North Springs project (subject 
     to authorization);
       $46,300,000 for the Boston Piers MOS-2 project (subject to 
     authorization);
       $2,300,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Charlotte South corridor transitway 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $500,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky 
     rail line project (subject to authorization);
       $5,000,000 for the Clark County, Nevada fixed guideway 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $800,000 for the Cleveland Blue Line extension to Highland 
     Hills project (subject to authorization);
       $700,000 for the Cleveland Berea Red Line extension to 
     Hopkins International Airport (subject to authorization);
       $1,200,000 for the Cleveland Waterfront Line extension 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $14,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $8,000,000 for the DART North Central light rail extension 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $1,500,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia light rail 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $21,400,000 for the Denver Southwest Corridor project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $7,000,000 for the Florida Tri-County commuter rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Galveston, Texas rail trolley system 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Houston Advanced Regional Bus Plan 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $51,100,000 for the Houston Regional Bus project (subject 
     to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Indianapolis Northeast corridor project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $4,000,000 for the Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $76,000,000 for the Los Angeles MOS-3 project (subject to 
     authorization);
       $27,000,000 for MARC commuter rail improvements (subject to 
     authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee regional rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $9,000,000 for the Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $9,000,000 for the Miami-North 27th Avenue project (subject 
     to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Mission Valley East corridor project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $54,800,000 for the New Jersey-Hudson-Bergen project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $27,000,000 for the New Jersey Secaucus project (subject to 
     authorization);
       $8,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $2,000,000 for the New Orleans Desire Streetcar project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $6,000,000 for the North Carolina Research Triangle Park 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana South Shore commuter 
     rail project (subject to authorization);
       $5,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido light rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $1,600,000 for the Oklahoma City MAPS corridor transit 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $4,000,000 for the Orange County transitway project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $31,800,000 for the Orlando Lynx light rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $500,000 for the Pennsylvania Strawberry Hill/Diamond 
     Branch rail project (subject to authorization);
       $8,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $3,000,000 for the Pittsburgh airport busway project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $63,400,000 for the Portland-Westside/Hillsboro project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $20,300,000 for the Sacramento LRT project (subject to 
     authorization);
       $42,800,000 for the Salt Lake City South LRT project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the San Bernardino Metrolink project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $3,000,000 for the San Diego Mid-Coast corridor project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $54,800,000 for the San Francisco BART extension to the 
     airport project (subject to authorization);
       $25,700,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano (subject to 
     authorization);
       $21,400,000 for the San Jose Tasman LRT project (subject to 
     authorization);

[[Page H5643]]

       $4,000,000 for the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $2,000,000 for the Seattle-Tacoma light rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $30,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair LRT extension 
     project (subject to authorization);
       $5,000,000 for the St. George Ferry terminal project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $2,000,000 for the Tampa Bay regional rail project (subject 
     to authorization);
       $2,000,000 for the Tidewater, Virginia rail project 
     (subject to authorization);
       $1,000,000 for the Toledo, Ohio rail project (subject to 
     authorization);
       $20,000,000 for the Twin Cities transitways projects 
     (subject to authorization);
       $2,500,000 for the Virginia Rail Express Fredericksburg to 
     Washington commuter rail project (subject to authorization);
       $5,000,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal project 
     (subject to authorization); and
       $5,000,000 for the Wisconsin central commuter rail project 
     (subject to authorization).

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(b) administered by the Federal Transit 
     Administration, $2,350,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 14 of Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551, 
     $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operation and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, including the Great Lakes Pilotage functions 
     delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, $11,200,000, to 
     be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant 
     to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $27,934,000, of 
     which $574,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $4,950,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the 
     general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to 
     be available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training, for 
     reports publication and dissemination, and for travel 
     expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials 
     exemptions and approvals functions.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (pipeline safety fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $31,486,000, of which $3,300,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2000; and of which 
     $28,186,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $14,839,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2000: Provided, That in addition to amounts made 
     available for the Pipeline Safety Fund, $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for grants to States for the development and 
     establishment of one-call notification systems and shall be 
     derived from amounts previously collected under section 7005 
     of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1985.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 
     5127(d) shall be made available for obligation by individuals 
     other than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $42,000,000: Provided, That none of the 
     funds under this heading shall be for the conduct of contract 
     audits.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $15,853,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $2,000,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     for the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1998, to result in a final appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at no more than $13,853,000: Provided 
     further, That any fees received in excess of $2,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1998.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $3,640,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902) 
     $46,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                             Emergency Fund

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board for accident investigations, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for a GS-18; 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902), $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1998 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available (1) except as otherwise authorized by title VIII of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 
     7701, et seq., for expenses of primary and secondary 
     schooling for dependents of Federal Aviation Administration 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     costs for any given area not in excess of those of the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, 
     available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 
     for the education of such dependents, and (2) for 
     transportation of said dependents between schools serving the 
     area that they attend and their places of residence when the 
     Secretary, under such regulations as may be prescribed, 
     determines that such schools are not accessible by public 
     means of transportation on a regular basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than one hundred seven 
     political and Presidential appointees in the Department of 
     Transportation: Provided, That none of the personnel covered 
     by this provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside 
     the Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.

[[Page H5644]]

       Sec. 308. The Secretary of Transportation may enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     any unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, and any other entity in execution of the 
     Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense 
     Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance Act of 
     1992 and related legislation: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive Order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 1998 the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall distribute the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid highways by allocation in the ratio which sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highways that 
     are apportioned or allocated to each State for such fiscal 
     year bear to the total of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for Federal-aid highways that are apportioned or 
     allocated to all the States for such fiscal year.
       (b) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1997, 
     no State shall obligate more than 25 per centum of the amount 
     distributed to such State under subsection (a), and the total 
     of all State obligations during such period shall not exceed 
     12 per centum of the total amount distributed to all States 
     under such subsection.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) provide all States with authority sufficient to prevent 
     lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid 
     highways that have been apportioned to a State;
       (2) after August 1, 1998, revise a distribution of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) if a State will not 
     obligate the amount distributed during that fiscal year and 
     redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 103(e)(4), 104, and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and under sections 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-
     240; and
       (3) not distribute amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses and funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     the Federal lands highway program, the intelligent 
     transportation systems program, and amounts made available 
     under sections 1040, 1047, 1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023, and 
     6024 of Public Law 102-240, and 49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317, and 
     5338: Provided, That amounts made available under section 
     6005 of Public Law 102-240 shall be subject to the obligation 
     limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs under the head ``Federal-Aid Highways'' 
     in this Act.
       (d) During the period October 1 through December 31, 1997, 
     the aggregate amount of obligations under section 157 of 
     title 23, United States Code, for projects covered under 
     section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 
     1978, section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981, 
     sections 131(b), 131(j), and 404 of Public Law 97-424, 
     sections 1061, 1103 through 1108, 4008, and 6023(b)(8) and 
     6023(b)(10) of Public Law 102-240, and for projects 
     authorized by Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 100-17, shall 
     not exceed $277,431,840.
       (e) During the period August 2 through September 30, 1998, 
     the aggregate amount which may be obligated by all States 
     shall not exceed 2.5 percent of the aggregate amount of funds 
     apportioned or allocated to all States--
       (1) under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, and 1013(c) and 1015 of Public Law 102-240, and
       (2) for highway assistance projects under section 103(e)(4) 
     of title 23, United States Code, which would not be obligated 
     in fiscal year 1998 if the total amount of the obligation 
     limitation provided for such fiscal year in this Act were 
     utilized.
       (f) Paragraph (e) shall not apply to any State which on or 
     after August 1, 1998, has the amount distributed to such 
     State under paragraph (a) for fiscal year 1998 reduced under 
     paragraph (c)(2).
       Sec. 311. The limitation on obligations for the programs of 
     the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation under the discretionary grants 
     program.
       Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 315. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract or (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the Government's liability or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Discretionary grants'' for projects specified in this Act or 
     identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by 
     September 30, 2000, shall be made available for other 
     projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 317. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1993, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 350 technical staff years under the 
     federally-funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     1998.
       Sec. 319. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by 
     $25,000,000, which limits fiscal year 1998 TASC obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $96,800,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the Transportation Administrative Service 
     Center.
       Sec. 320. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses'' account, the 
     Federal Transit Administration's ``Transit Planning and 
     Research'' account, and to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's ``Railroad Safety'' account, except for 
     State rail safety inspectors participating in training 
     pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 321. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901, et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 322. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth 
     runway at the Denver International Airport, Denver, Colorado: 
     Provided, That this provision shall not apply in any case 
     where the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration determines, in writing, that safety conditions 
     warrant obligation of such funds: Provided further, That 
     funds may be used for activities related to planning or 
     analysis of airport noise issues related to the sixth runway 
     project.
       Sec. 323. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, may be credited to the 
     Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing 
     the Bureau for such expenses: Provided, That such funds shall 
     not be subject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction.
       Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious

[[Page H5645]]

     belief systems or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, 
     dated September 2, 1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to 
     change, participants' personal values or lifestyle outside 
     the workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 325. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the 
     absence of express authorization by Congress, be used 
     directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
     advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or 
     written matter, or other device, intended or designed to 
     influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or 
     oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or 
     appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the 
     introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such 
     legislation or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the Department of 
     Transportation or related agencies funded in this Act from 
     communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any 
     Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, 
     requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem 
     necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
       Sec. 326. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     support Federal Transit Administration's field operations and 
     oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority in any location other than from the Washington, 
     D.C. metropolitan area.
       Sec. 327. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any 
     subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption 
     provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions 
     from the disclosure requirements of 49 CFR part 580 for any 
     class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 328. No funds other than those appropriated to the 
     Surface Transportation Board shall be used for conducting the 
     activities of the Board.
       Sec. 329. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress: Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 330. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     receipts, in amounts determined by the Secretary, collected 
     from users of fitness centers operated by or for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available to support 
     the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
       Sec. 331. Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 41742, no essential air 
     service shall be provided to communities in the forty-eight 
     contiguous States that are located fewer than seventy highway 
     miles from the nearest large and medium hub airport, or that 
     require a rate of subsidy per passenger in excess of $200 
     unless such point is greater than two hundred and ten miles 
     from the nearest large or medium hub airport.
       Sec. 332. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York 
     City, New York.
       Sec. 333. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.

                                TITLE IV

                  AMTRAK ROUTE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Amtrak Route Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an independent 
     commission to be known as the ``Total Realignment of Amtrak 
     Commission'' (in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 
     eleven members as follows:
       (1) Three individuals appointed by the President, 
     including--
       (A) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (B) one representative of a rail labor union; and
       (C) one representative of a rail management.
       (2) Four individuals who collectively have expertise in 
     rail finance, economic analysis, legal issues, and other 
     relevant areas, of which three shall be appointed by the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate and one shall be appointed by 
     the Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (3) Four individuals who collectively have expertise in 
     rail finance, economic analysis, legal issues, and other 
     relevant areas, of which three shall be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and one shall be 
     appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives.

     Appointments under this subsection shall be made within 15 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Individuals 
     appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not be employees 
     of the Department of Transportation or representatives of a 
     rail labor union or rail management.
       (c) Chairman.--Within 10 days after the 15-day period 
     described in subsection (b), or the appointment of the last 
     member of the Commission under such subsection, whichever 
     occurs first, a majority of the members of the Commission may 
     elect a chairman from among its membership. If a chairman is 
     not elected within such 10-day period, the President shall 
     select a chairman for the Commission from among its 
     membership.
       (d) Meetings.--(1) Each meeting of the Commission shall be 
     open to the public.
       (2) All the proceedings, information, and deliberations of 
     the Commission shall be open or available, upon request, to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (e) Pay and Travel Expenses.--(1)(A) Each member, other 
     than the Chairman, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel 
     time) during which the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (B) The Chairman shall be paid for each day referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of 
     the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level III of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (C) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), officers and 
     employees of the Federal Government shall not be paid under 
     this paragraph for service on the Commission.
       (2) Members shall receive travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 
     and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Director of Staff.--The Commission shall appoint a 
     Director, who shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (g) Staff.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Director, 
     with the approval of the Commission, may appoint and fix the 
     pay of not more than 5 additional employees.
       (2) The Director may make such appointments without regard 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and any personnel so 
     appointed may be paid without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay 
     in excess of the annual rate of basic pay payable for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (h) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act 
     at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as 
     the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it.
       (i) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any department or agency of the United States information 
     necessary to enable it to carry out this Act. Upon request of 
     the Chairman of the Commission, the head of that department 
     or agency shall furnish that information to the Commission to 
     the extent otherwise permitted by law.
       (j) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (k) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (l) Experts or Consultants.--The Commission may procure by 
     contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or

[[Page H5646]]

     intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.
       (m) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days 
     after transmitting a report under section 3(e).

     SEC. 3. DUTIES.

       (a) Economic Performance Rankings.--The Commission shall 
     examine economic data for Amtrak's system and develop system-
     wide performance rankings of all routes based on long-term 
     economic loss.
       (b) Identification of Candidate Routes for Closure or 
     Realignment.--(1) The Commission shall identify routes which 
     are candidates for closure or realignment, based on the 
     performance rankings developed under subsection (a) and on 
     the following principles:
       (A) The system which remains after closure and realignment 
     of routes shall not be required to be a national, 
     interconnected system.
       (B) Federal operating subsidies for Amtrak shall be assumed 
     to decline over the 4-year period to the point of zero 
     Federal operating subsidy by the year 2002.
       (C) The rail labor protection costs of Amtrak shall be 
     calculated both--
       (i) at the level required under rail labor laws as in 
     effect when the Commission is identifying routes under this 
     subsection; and
       (ii) at the level which would be required if amendments to 
     rail labor laws were enacted that--
       (I) limit to a maximum of 6 months any wage continuation or 
     severance benefit for an employee of Amtrak whose employment 
     is terminated as a result of a discontinuance of intercity 
     rail passenger service; and
       (II) permit Amtrak to require any employee whose position 
     is eliminated as a result of such a discontinuance to 
     transfer to another part of Amtrak's system.
       (2) The Commission shall specifically examine ridership 
     forecasts and other assumptions supporting continued service 
     on the Northeast Corridor, particularly with respect to the 
     continuation of the electrification of the Northeast Corridor 
     between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, Massachusetts.
       (c) Consideration of Quality of Life Factors.--(1) Each 
     route identified under subsection (b) as a candidate for 
     closure or realignment shall be reviewed to determine whether 
     there are important social, environmental, or other quality 
     of life factors which should be considered in determining 
     whether to close or realign the route. The commission shall 
     also consider the effect on airport congestion and the 
     availability of alternative modes of transportation, 
     especially in rural areas, before recommending any closure or 
     realignment.
       (2) The Commission shall hold public hearings to obtain 
     testimony from State and local officials, and other 
     interested parties, with respect to factors described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (d) Optional Uses for Abandoned Rail Lines.--The Commission 
     shall also examine optional uses for abandoned rail lines.
       (e) Recommendations.--The Commission shall, within 120 days 
     after the election or selection of its chairman under section 
     2(c), transmit to the Congress and the President a report on 
     its activities under this Act, including recommendations 
     developed under this section for the closure and realignment 
     of routes in Amtrak's passenger rail system.

     SEC. 4. MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION.

       There are appropriated $1,000,000 for carrying out this 
     title.


                            Points of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to the remaining portions 
of the bill?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
331.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
331. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it 
establishes criteria involving distance from a hub and subsidy for 
passengers that have the effect of excluding some small communities 
from eligibility for subsidized air service under the essential air 
service program.

                              {time}  1545

  The communities excluded are those that are eligible for service 
under subchapter 2 of chapter 417 of title 49. Changing the eligibility 
rules constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of 
House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair would rule. Section 331 of the bill explicitly 
waives existing law and therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and section 
331 is stricken from the bill.
  Are there further points of order?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title IV.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 53, 
line 3 through page 65, line 6.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it establishes 
an independent commission called the Total Realignment of Amtrak 
Commission to renew Amtrak's route system and identify candidates for 
closure or realignment similar to the commission established to close 
military facilities. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. I understand why the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is doing it. I appreciate the concern.
  I would urge the Congress to work and support the efforts of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] to reform and change Amtrak, 
because as we are putting all of the money into Amtrak, if there is no 
reform and GAO and IG has looked at it, it has continued getting worse 
and it is, in essence, perhaps this is not an apt example, but putting 
money down a rathole.
  I think what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is doing 
with regard to the restructuring is very, very important. I would have 
hoped that this language could have stayed in, but it is important that 
the Congress pass legislation, because I think we are going to see 
dwindling support if some restructuring is not done.
  I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order and the 
matter included in the bill as title IV is, in fact, entirely 
legislative. The point of order is sustained, and that matter is 
stricken from the bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner: Page 22, line 1, strike 
     ``loan guarantee'' and all that follows before the period 
     on line 2 and insert the following:

     loan guarantee subsidy shall be made in excess of $490,000 
     during fiscal year 1998.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce an amendment that 
is critical to the economic development not only of San Diego, my own 
district, but other communities throughout this Nation.
  My amendment will appropriate $490,000 for the section 511 railroad 
loan guarantee program in order to leverage approximately $10 million 
in private sector loan guarantees necessary to help reestablish and 
rehabilitate small regional freight railroads like the San Diego & 
Arizona Eastern Railroad.
  I repeat, this is a loan guarantee which leverages approximately 20 
times that amount of private sector funding. Reestablishment of this 
railroad is on the top of everyone's priority list in San Diego and 
enjoys wide bipartisan support. Several colleagues from San Diego 
County on the other side of the aisle support this, as do the city of 
San Diego, the County Board of Supervisors, the San Diego Association 
of Governments, the Port of San Diego, the Greater San Diego Chamber of 
Commerce and the San Diego Economic Development Corporation. All agree 
that reestablishing this rail link is the area's highest priority for 
economic development.
  Many of our Nation's regional and short line railroads find it 
difficult to obtain private financing because of high interest rates 
and short terms. Government assistance in the form of loan guarantees 
often becomes the only viable means to rehabilitate these vital links 
in our transportation infrastructure. I believe that the section 511 
program, because it is not a grant program, it is not even a loan 
program but a loan guarantee to leverage private sector loans, is 
precisely the type of public-private partnership this Congress ought to 
encourage. Unfortunately, this program does not receive any funding in 
the bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, the economies of communities like San Diego and others 
would be greatly helped by rehabilitation of these small freight 
railroad

[[Page H5647]]

lines, and they need help now. I hope my colleagues can support this 
investment in economic growth.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
think it is important for all of us in Congress to understand what the 
loan guarantee program is and what it provides assistance to. What it 
provides assistance to are the short line railroads in our country.
  Most of us in this Congress do not know what those short line 
railroads are. They have no appreciation for them. They do not know of 
their importance to the community. If they did, we would be providing 
funding for or we would be providing these loan guarantees.
  In this bill, we have provided assistance for our airlines, for 
aviation, we have provided assistance for highways, for our motor 
freight carriers, we have provided assistance for our waterways and for 
passenger railroad. The one area that we have not addressed is our 
railroad system. We heavily subsidize all forms of transportation and 
transport except our freight railroads. Today within the freight 
railroads, there is definitely a segment that needs some assistance and 
recognition from the Federal Government. That is our short line 
railroads.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues about one short line railroad 
in my district. A short line railroad in my district is 52 miles long. 
Over 4,000 employees work for small plants on that railroad. That 
railroad has not turned a profit for 4 years. It has had two washouts. 
If that short line railroad goes defunct, it will result in over 2,000 
blue-collar workers being laid off in my district. That is only one of 
over 300 short line railroads. Most of them are minimally profitable or 
marginally profitable or not profitable at all.
  I would simply appeal to the Committee on Appropriations and to the 
Transportation chairman and to this subcommittee to learn more about 
this important segment. These are the have-nots of the freight 
railroads. These companies, they are sort of the grassroots, they are 
the fingers and the toes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Filner was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my remarks to the entire 
body and specifically about the short line railroads.
  The short line railroads are the result of the Class I railroads. 
There used to be over 30 Class I railroads. In certain areas, the 
density of the track, the amount of freight over those lines was 
insufficient for them to operate. So what those large railroads did is 
they tried to abandon that track in most cases. But State and local 
governments came in and Federal agencies and said that you cannot 
abandon that track because it is necessary for the economic vitality of 
a certain region. These short line railroads came in and are now 
operating those tracks.
  As I have said, people's jobs, people's welfares, communities' 
existence depend on these railroads. Wherever we have large 
agricultural areas, grain roads, the farmers depend on those roads to 
get their crops out. In high industrial areas, they depend on those 
small railroads. Those railroads may not be known, they may not be 
appreciated by Members of this body, but they are absolutely critical 
to those communities, and they are absolutely critical to the economic 
welfare of our country. To me it is a sad day that probably because of 
simply a lack of understanding, a lack of knowledge about where these 
railroads are, what factories they serve, what they mean to the people 
they serve and the fact that if we do not continue these loan guarantee 
programs, these railroads will go out of existence, and with them 
factories and jobs.
  I do plan to have some conversations with members of the Committee on 
Appropriations. I plan to ask them, among other questions, do they know 
how many factories are served by short line railroads? How many of 
those short line railroads are profitable? How many employees work for 
those plants that are served by those short line railroads? And whether 
or not they feel that this minuscule amount of money that the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure had authorized and urged the 
Committee on Appropriations to set aside, if they think that that was 
too much money for the livelihood of over 2 million American workers 
that depend on these short line railroads for a paycheck every Friday. 
It is something that we ought to ask ourselves. These workers are blue-
collar workers, they are in industries that sometimes are competing 
fiercely with foreign companies, and by jerking this loan program, we 
will put people out of business, we will cause people to lose their 
jobs, we will cause some of these 16,000 small businesses, not the 
railroads, but the 16,000 small businesses to declare bankruptcy and go 
out of business to foreign competition. I am just sad that we have made 
this decision.
  I am going to vote for the bill on the whole, and I know that this 
was not willfully done, I know it was not intentionally done, but when 
we vote through this bill and it does not have these loan guarantees 
in, we are putting at jeopardy over 2 million jobs, over 16,000 
factories in this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia continue his 
reservation?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California. Let me take a little different tack. On 
a bipartisan nature, both Republicans and Democrats in the California 
area, when the Federal Government induces or causes a problem or at 
least contributes to it, then it should have that responsibility to 
take care of those problems.
  With the advent of the border States and NAFTA, especially along the 
Mexican border, the infrastructure and our highway and transportation 
system have been beaten to death by trucks, cars, and additional 
travel. The gentleman's amendment would ease that problem.
  Second, that the interstate transportation along a border State with 
a major port like San Diego actually enhances the economy of this great 
country with the Asian markets in which we have a current deficit, so 
it helps reduce that deficit. The gentleman has given a lot of thought 
to this amendment. We have not received the support that we think that 
it should receive.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of discussion here about 
the problems and the opportunities of NAFTA on this floor, but this is 
a situation where we need to recognize that with all the hand-wringing 
and the complaints about NAFTA not creating enough jobs in the United 
States or pulling jobs away from the American worker, here is a project 
that has the opportunity to make NAFTA, at least in some part, a major 
positive in job generation. Here is a possibility of bringing jobs into 
the United States by having the proper infrastructure to be able to 
capitalize on the opportunity of the United States to be part of the 
export network from Mexico into Asia. This gives the capability to 
creating jobs in the Southwest that would not exist without this 
infrastructure and without NAFTA, frankly.
  I would just ask that all my colleagues who feel that NAFTA has not 
gotten the job done for the workers of America to recognize that though 
there are problems, there are also opportunities, and with those 
opportunities comes Federal obligations to take advantage of those 
opportunities and create the jobs, not just sit here in the House and 
say, well, the jobs just are not there, it is not working out, and 
complain.

                              {time}  1600

  But then look at these opportunities, as my colleague from California 
has pointed out, to build the infrastructure, to create the jobs, to 
make the opportunities so that the private sector can do what it does 
all too well, and that is to create the opportunities for those jobs.

[[Page H5648]]

  And I want to point out about border control, Mr. Chairman, I do not 
think anyone who sat on the House floor in the last 2 years has been 
more vocal than I have about border control. I think those of us who 
want to see border control need to recognize that there are rights and 
responsibilities of the Federal Government along this border. We need 
to control the border, but we also need to encourage the good things. 
We need to stop the illegal activity but also encourage the legal 
commerce that will make the border a prosperous opportunity for America 
rather than the problem that we have seen for all too long.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back 
the time, I mention just one more benefit from this, not only the 
Federal Government's responsibility for helping create jobs in NAFTA, 
not only in our rail but other rails, but to take a look at the 
environmental concerns when we put trains on and take heavy trucks and 
transportation off of our highways, the environmental and the pollution 
with EPA and so on is also benefited.
  Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] wish to 
continue his reservation of objection?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this because it is clear 
that the committee is and the chairman of the committee is prepared to 
execute his reservation against any of these loans, loan guarantees for 
short-track rail, and therefore it is not necessary to take a vote on 
this, on this issue. But I do want to, since my colleagues, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] 
have spoken about the prospects for this guaranteed program with 
respect to a San Diego to points east rail line, I thought it was 
important to come out and just say a few things about that 
specifically.
  First, there is a broken down railway between San Diego and points 
east that goes mainly and starts out in the district of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Filner], goes mainly through in terms of mileage, 
through my district going east, but I do not think that is really 
relevant, whose district it goes through.
  I think what probably is more relevant is the commentary that was 
elicited recently from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] who is one 
of our esteemed Members of Congress, former Border Patrol chief in El 
Paso. And if my colleagues walk through this problem with him with 
respect to border control problems, that is, having a short-track rail 
line that actually goes into Mexico. This is the area in Mexico where 
we are now having fire fights between border patrolmen and smuggling 
elements on the other side of the border; goes into Mexico, goes 
through about 50, 60 miles of rugged country, comes back along a series 
of precarious canyons, and then comes back into the United States. The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] has made a couple of statements with 
respect to that railroad that I think should be considered by any 
Member of Congress before they pass this thing.
  First, he said that this railroad will be vulnerable to robberies, 
just like the railroad in El Paso which was robbed 600 times last year. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] himself in an interview, a 
television show that I did with him, mentioned he himself was in a 
gunfight between train robbers on the other side of the border and 
American Border Patrol agents on our side. In recent weeks we have had 
a series of fire fights, very brief fire fights, across the border 
where Border Patrol agents were shot at in some cases; in the first 
case, actually shot by drug agents on the other or by drug operatives 
on the other side, forced to return fire, and we have actually had more 
fire back and forth across the southwest border in the San Diego region 
than we have had in Bosnia in the same period of time. It is a very 
dangerous area.
  I would suggest that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] should be 
listened to when he says, ``First you should get the guarantee of the 
government of Mexico that they will, in fact, patrol that area on the 
Mexican side. Otherwise,'' he said, ``you're not going to have 
control.'' He said we should do that before we rehabilitate that rail 
line.
  Second, he showed several areas where in remote areas we are going to 
have problems. Now we had over 600 robberies in 1 year with the rail 
line in El Paso. We had it with the rail line that comes into Laredo, 
we had over 36,000 illegal aliens pulled off that rail line last year, 
and the President of Southern Pacific in that area asking the President 
of the United States for the entire increase in border patrol for the 
Nation. That is 500 new border patrolmen going just to protect his 
railroad.
  Now the happy talkers in San Diego say that will never happen to us, 
and that is all they say. They do not offer any experience that is any 
better than the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] who was chief of the 
Border Patrol for some 20 years, who was in fire fights on the border, 
who understands across-border crime problems. They just say it will not 
happen, and I would just suggest to my colleagues we have had a vote on 
this thing before. It was overwhelmingly defeated because we do not 
have that guarantee of security for Mexico, we do not have that 
guarantee from the Clinton administration that they have an extra 
thousand Border Patrol agents to put 500 in south Texas just to guard 
one railroad and to put another contingent similar to that in southern 
California.
  Right now, our eyes should be on the ball. The ball is border 
control. We are building fences, we are building roads, we are building 
lights, and we are putting more border patrolmen at the border, and the 
last thing we need to do is complicate the security situation by 
weaving a railroad in between this situation on rickety tracks across 
precipitous canyons and inviting at least in the words of, in the 
opinion of probably the best expert on border control in this Congress, 
and that is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes], at least the 
complexity in border patrol.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] wish to 
continue his reservation of objection?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a point of order raised 
against this amendment and the amendment may be withdrawn. I would like 
to speak from the perspective of my congressional district in somewhat 
reference to the reservations of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Duncan Hunter] about precipitous railroad tax and dangerous canyons for 
the shortline railroads to run across the border to Mexico and to be 
used or abused, and I recognize the problems that he has in his 
congressional district.
  In my congressional district the shortline railroads are absolutely 
indispensable, and I think that the Federal Government, when we 
subsidize the automobile industry, the airport industry, and just name 
it, I think if we target with these loan guarantees, and this is not a 
direct subsidy, it is not a direct appropriation; this is a loan 
guarantee program. The shortline railroads in my district haul stone 
for roads, they haul grain for livestock, they haul manufactured goods. 
They are an absolutely indispensable, very important part, a critical 
part of the infrastructure of the economic base of my congressional 
district, and I am sure that they are a critical part of a whole range 
of congressional districts around this country.
  This is not a subsidy that we want to prop up an industry that has no 
value. This is an interest in an industry that is virtually, in my 
judgment, indispensable for the economic health of this country via 
those small areas, whether they be urban areas, suburban areas or rural 
areas, to provide the important link between the major rail systems in 
this country.
  So I am not sure what is going to happen in the next few minutes, but 
I strongly urge this Congress today or tomorrow to deal very 
effectively with this vital link, this vital part of our 
infrastructure, this vital link of our economic base.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to be heard upon 
his reservation of objection?

[[Page H5649]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner] first.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the support from 
people from both sides of the aisle and different parts of the country. 
I hope the chairman and the ranking member would seriously consider 
these aspects in coming years. I understand the pressures they are 
under, the debate that we see here, especially with the San Diego 
situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Filner] is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Gilchrest] having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 2169), 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 189, he reported the bill, as 
amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 424, 
nays 5, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               YEAS--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--5

     Campbell
     Dingell
     Hostettler
     Paul
     Sanford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graham
     Pallone
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1639

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________