Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)

[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.

____________________