[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8180-S8185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m.
having come and gone, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of S. 1048, which the clerk will please report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1048) making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
list of individuals be given full floor privileges during the
consideration of S. 1048: Wally Burnett, Joyce Rose, Reid Cavnar,
George McDonald, Kathy Casey, Peter Rogoff, Michael Brennan, Liz
O'Donoghue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
list also be given floor privileges during consideration of S. 1048:
Tom Young, Alan Brown, Carole Geagley, and Mitch Warren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased this evening to present the
fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and related agencies
appropriations bill. The subcommittee's allocation was $12.157 billion
in nondefense discretionary budget authority, and $36.893 billion in
nondefense discretionary outlays.
The bill I am presenting today, along with my colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is within those allocations and is
consistent with our determination to achieve a balanced budget. This
bill will also contribute to a safer and more efficient transportation
system in this country and therefore contribute to economic growth and
a better quality of life for all Americans.
This bill provides $30.1 billion for investment in infrastructure
that the public uses, that is, highways, transit, airports, and
railroads. That represents an 8 percent increase over the
administration's request.
The bill includes a Federal-aid highway obligation limitation of
$21.8 billion for investment in our Nation's highways. This is a record
high level. And $1.63 billion above the President's amended budget
request. The actual distribution of that obligation authority among the
States will depend on reauthorization of ISTEA, also known as the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which has
provided authorization of our Federal surface transportation programs
for the past 6 years and which, as the Presiding Officer knows, expires
at the end of this fiscal year.
This increase of almost $3 billion over the obligation limitation in
place for this year will almost certainly mean more Federal highway
spending for each of our States. I want to illustrate for Senators what
this increase might mean for them even though I must caution my
colleagues this evening that no one can predict now how highway funds
will be distributed among the States next year.
I ask unanimous consent that this table comparing State-by-State
distribution of highway obligation authority in the current fiscal year
to the distribution of the highway obligation authority in our bill for
the fiscal year 1998, assuming the same apportionments of contract
authority among the States as this year, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--ACTUAL FY 1997 OBLIGATION LIMITATION &
ESTIMATED FY 1998 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. FY 1998
Total FY 1997 limitation
State obligation based on FY Delta
limitation 1997 actual
\1\ apportionments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................................ 342,557 396,091 53,535
Alaska............................................................. 195,784 231,059 35,276
Arizona............................................................ 244,117 285,850 41,733
Arkansas........................................................... 205,115 244,592 39,477
California......................................................... 1,513,221 1,801,124 287,903
Colorado........................................................... 192,727 229,249 36,522
Connecticut........................................................ 342,128 407,185 65,056
Delaware........................................................... 74,967 89,241 14,274
Dist. of Col....................................................... 77,307 93,231 15,924
Florida............................................................ 757,510 869,277 111,767
Georgia............................................................ 560,549 620,305 59,756
[[Page S8181]]
Hawaii............................................................. 117,861 140,413 22,552
Idaho.............................................................. 103,597 125,018 21,421
Illinois........................................................... 638,487 759,358 120,871
Indiana............................................................ 393,703 470,604 76,900
Iowa............................................................... 191,366 227,597 36,232
Kansas............................................................. 198,323 236,001 37,678
Kentucky........................................................... 308,464 343,085 34,621
Louisiana.......................................................... 261,004 312,517 51,513
Maine.............................................................. 88,442 105,102 16,660
Maryland........................................................... 261,931 306,085 44,154
Massachusetts...................................................... 663,051 782,793 119,742
Michigan........................................................... 510,281 610,265 99,984
Minnesota.......................................................... 239,327 278,865 39,539
Mississippi........................................................ 201,721 241,881 40,160
Missouri........................................................... 391,755 470,538 78,783
Montana............................................................ 146,156 169,351 23,195
Nebraska........................................................... 134,539 160,125 25,585
Nevada............................................................. 101,072 120,184 19,112
New Hampshire...................................................... 82,749 98,474 15,724
New Jersey......................................................... 462,907 550,465 87,558
New Mexico......................................................... 161,983 190,795 28,812
New York........................................................... 1,010,508 1,202,370 191,862
North Carolina..................................................... 447,701 532,817 85,116
North Dakota....................................................... 98,670 117,360 18,690
Ohio............................................................... 601,766 732,224 130,458
Oklahoma........................................................... 258,618 309,756 51,138
Oregon............................................................. 202,318 241,238 38,920
Pennsylvania....................................................... 676,649 812,481 135,832
Rhode Island....................................................... 80,354 92,228 11,874
South Carolina..................................................... 273,300 314,160 40,860
South Dakota....................................................... 107,686 128,097 20,411
Tennessee.......................................................... 375,667 451,035 75,368
Texas.............................................................. 1,204,819 1,404,097 199,278
Utah............................................................... 122,674 144,653 21,979
Vermont............................................................ 75,942 90,381 14,438
Virginia........................................................... 390,933 464,221 73,288
Washington......................................................... 312,109 369,628 57,519
West Virginia...................................................... 153,425 182,354 28,929
Wisconsin.......................................................... 336,942 402,433 65,491
Wyoming............................................................ 107,621 128,057 20,436
Puerto Rico........................................................ 73,656 87,690 14,034
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 17,076,061 20,174,002 3,097,942
Administration..................................................... 551,192 558,440 7,248
Federal Lands...................................................... 440,000 440,000 0
Reserve............................................................ 627,558 627,558 0
--------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 18,694,811 21,800,000 3,105,190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include an estimated $264 million in bonus limitation yet to be distributed.
Mr. SHELBY. If our limitation becomes law by the end of September,
the States will be apportioned an average of 18 percent more--18
percent more--highway obligation limitation for 1998 than they were
apportioned at the beginning of last fiscal year. That is some
improvement in the money.
In addition, we have included $300 million for Appalachian
Development Highway System investment consistent with existing
authorization. The Federal Government made a commitment to improve
these highways which run through economically undeveloped areas in 13
of our States, and our bill helps to keep that commitment. This
investment will pay off not only in economic development in areas that
are in much need of it but also in lives saved since these highways in
mountainous areas are often high-accident locations in our country.
As most Senators know, Federal investment in airport development has
been declining in recent years, and the administration proposed a
further cut for the coming year. Our committee could not agree with
that proposal at a time when air travel is increasingly in demand and
air safety is uppermost in the minds of travelers. We have included
$1.7 billion for the airport improvement program.
Transit formula and discretionary accounts, including funding for
Washington Metrorail construction, all of which are for capital
investment in our bill, are funded at $4.56 billion, $311 million above
fiscal year 1997.
The bill provides $273 million for continued improvements on Amtrak's
Northeast corridor between Washington and Boston. For other Amtrak
capital expenditures, the bill makes a contingent appropriation, Mr.
President, of $641 million to be funded from the intercity passenger
rail fund, which would be established by S. 949, the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1997. The Amtrak capital appropriation in this
bill will be triggered when a final reconciliation bill including the
passenger rail fund is enacted into law and the transportation
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation is adjusted upward to cover the
additional appropriation.
Safety was a top priority as we developed this bill. It provides
$5.376 billion for the FAA operations account, including funds for an
increase of 235 aviation safety inspectors and 500 additional air
traffic controllers. Our appropriations for FAA operations is 99.8
percent of the administration's request. The committee was able to fund
the FAA's operation account at this level without imposing $300 million
in new user fee taxes proposed in the administration's request.
The toll of deaths and injuries on our highways, we believe, is too
high and our bill addresses that. It funds the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration Program at $333.5 million. That is a $33 million
increase above the fiscal year 1997 enacted levels and slightly higher
than the administration's request.
This bill provides $50.7 million for the National Transportation
Safety Board, 8 percent above the President's request, to support the
NTSB's investigatory mission and to expedite the development of safety
recommendations.
The Coast Guard, as you know, Mr. President, also plays a critical
role in the safe operation of our Nation's waterways. Its operations
funding of $2.73 billion as provided in this bill is an increase of
$112 million above fiscal year 1997. This level is consistent with the
administration's request for operating expenses and will continue
congressional support for a streamlined Coast Guard.
Coast Guard funding includes an increase of $53 million for antidrug
activities, which are coordinated by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. The committee has provided the Commandant of the Coast
Guard the discretion and the flexibility to manage this funding but has
encouraged the Department to look at these activities as areas that
would benefit from the development of performance measures.
The bill funds the Coast Guard's capital program at $412 million, an
increase of $33 million above the administration's request. This
provides the Coast Guard with the equipment, ships, and aircraft to
complete their multiple missions. The Coast Guard's capital needs,
especially for replacing aging vessels and facilities, will increase
dramatically in the years ahead and the committee's recommendation
focuses on those acquisition programs that can be accelerated now to
provide room in the outyears to replace these assets.
I note for the benefit of the Senators from States that depend on the
Saint Lawrence Seaway, that this bill assumes enactment of the
administration's proposal to convert the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation to a performance-based organization and to move
its financing from appropriated funds to an automatic annual
performance-based payment. No funds are included in this bill for the
Seaway Corporation, but if the legislative proposal fails, we will
ensure in conference that the Seaway Corporation is funded.
The Senate has taken the lead in past years in promoting management
reform at the Department of Transportation, especially at FAA. This
bill continues that direction by refraining from micromanagement of the
Department, even as we look for improved results. The committee report,
for example, offers guidance to the Secretary of Transportation on
improving on DOT's draft strategic plan which is required by the
Government Performance and Results Act. It also avoids artificial caps
on the efforts of the Department to act in a more businesslike way, but
it directs the DOT Inspector General to study whether in fact DOT's new
entrepreneurial service organization is provided cost-competitive,
high-quality service.
But, even as we addressed infrastructure investment and safety in
this bill, we have been very mindful of the priorities that Senators
had for this bill. We receive more than 900 requests for projects and
provisions to be included in this bill. We have reviewed those requests
very closely and accommodated them to the extent that we could. In some
cases, available funding was not sufficient to fund all requests, and
we had to make some tough choices. But we have tried to be as fair as
possible to all Senators on both sides of the aisle.
Many Senators wanted funds for highway projects of special interest
to them in their States. This year, ISTEA reauthorization is providing
a vehicle for special project funding, especially in the House where
there is very active consideration of such funding. But I want to
assure my colleagues this evening that I believe the Congress has at
least as legitimate a role in designating funding for specific highway
projects as it does in designating new transit projects that will be
funded. I intend to review the situation after enactment of ISTEA
reauthorization legislation and to work with my Senate and my House
colleagues in the year
[[Page S8182]]
ahead to ensure that we have an opportunity to designate funding for
highway projects of special interest to our States and to our
communities.
I am proud, overall, of what we have been able to accomplish in this
bill. It will benefit all Americans as it helps to improve
transportation services in this country so that the economy and
personal mobility are better served. I commend my colleague, the
ranking Democrat on the committee and the former chairman on this
committee, Senator Lautenberg, for all the hard work he has put in in
this effort.
At this time I yield to the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I want to say thank you to my
colleague from Alabama, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation of Appropriations, for the manner in which we have been
able to work together to resolve problems on this bill. I support the
leadership he has provided in getting us to this point where we are
able to present the Transportation and related agencies appropriations
bill for fiscal 1998. This bill was reported by the Appropriations
Committee just this past Tuesday, a week ago.
I don't believe that we give sufficient importance to our investment
in transportation infrastructure in this country. There is hardly a
State, that I am aware of as I talk to my colleagues, that is satisfied
with its ability to deal with congestion, its ability to move people
and goods from place-to-place efficiently. But I will say this. In view
of the sparseness of budget dollars, this bill went quite well. It is
the culmination of a very long and arduous effort to reestablish
transportation as a priority in our Federal budget.
As the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, I, along with
Senator Domenici and several other members, spent a great deal of time
and energy trying to ensure that transportation would be treated as we
like to see it, as a priority under the budget resolution. That is
where it all starts, the allocation of funds in the budget resolution
to the various functions of Government.
Transportation was not one of the priorities that the administration
brought to the table. It was a congressional priority. The Congress
decided we needed more money for transportation, and we have succeeded
in getting it. We are interested in a balanced transportation network.
I think the bill now before the Senate does exactly that.
Our efforts on the budget resolution are well reflected in the
sizable funding increases contained in this bill for critical
transportation infrastructure programs. I want to thank the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens for the funding
allocation he granted to this subcommittee. He is serving as chairman
of the Appropriations Committee for the first time this year and he is
doing an excellent job. He and Senator Byrd, the ranking Democrat,
worked hard to grant the Transportation Subcommittee an allocation that
was consistent with the priority that was placed on transportation when
we did the budget resolution.
Mr. President, this bill has gone through a steady series of
improvements as it moved through the process. In the view of this
Senator, the bill that was presented to the subcommittee on July 15
just did not go far enough in reflecting the needs of all
transportation modes as well as the needs of all regions of the
country. The bill had very sizable increases for important national
programs such as the Federal-aid highway obligation ceiling and airport
grants. However, the bill also provided a freeze on formula funding for
mass transit and included insufficient funding for Amtrak's operating
subsidy. This funding shortfall in Amtrak could have rapidly brought
about the bankruptcy of the railroad very early in the coming fiscal
year.
There are very few countries that have, frankly, as insufficient
intercity rail service as does the United States. When you look at the
major developed countries of the world other than the United States,
all of them, without a doubt, whether it be Japan's bullet train or the
French TGV or trains in Germany or other parts of the world that zip
along at 180 miles an hour--all of them depend on sizeable operating
subsidies from the government.
I am not sure, nor is the chairman, whether everybody would want to
get to Washington in an hour and a half from New York, but we at least
ought to make it possible. We could certainly do that and save time
waiting at airports. But we must continue to invest, in Amtrak to make
that happen. They have new equipment ordered that will accelerate the
pace at which passengers can go from Boston to Washington.
But we needed the cooperation of the chairman, Senator Shelby, and we
were able to work together to boost Amtrak's operating subsidy by $154
million above the level originally presented to the subcommittee. The
funding level now stands at the level that was requested by the
administration. We were also able to provide an additional $200 million
in transit formula grants at full committee markup so the percentage
boost for transit formula assistance would begin to approach the
percentage increases provide for highway formula assistance and for
airport grants.
What we are saying with these important adjustments is that we salute
a balanced transportation system in this country that includes
highways, includes aviation, includes rail, includes all of the modes
of mass transit so we can have the kind of efficiency in our
transportation system that we need.
These adjustments in the bill were made through careful negotiations
between Chairman Shelby and myself. They were made without the need for
a rollcall vote in either the subcommittee or the full committee. That
fact is indicative of the cooperation and fair-minded spirit that the
chairman has brought to this bill.
With these changes now included in the transportation funding bill, I
am pleased to recommend this bill to the entire Senate. It is a
balanced bill that provides desperately needed funds to our States and
communities to address the crushing problem of congestion in our cities
and towns. As a matter of fact, in our region they are about to
celebrate the initiation of another technological improvement in the
collection of tolls. Some people do not support the rapid collection of
tolls. They want to hang onto their money as long as possible. But the
choice, Mr. President, is to sit in traffic for 15 minutes, 20 minutes,
or a half hour at the toll gate. I drove, on Sunday, through one of
what they call the easy pass tollgates. I want to tell you, it was a
pleasure. They had a little thing on the windshield and when we got to
the gate, up went the gate, down went my $4. But the fact of the matter
is, it does improve the way we move ahead.
That is the kind of improvements that we need. We have to continue to
present technological innovation to improve the way our highways, our
airports, and our railroads function.
So, I think it is fair to say that this funding will accelerate our
efforts to address improvements in our transportation infrastructure,
which is deteriorating faster, frankly, than we can replace it. The
bill will also provide critically needed funding, as you heard from the
chairman, to maintain safety in all our transportation modes. I want to
point out, there is still one significant hole in this bill, and that
is the funding for Amtrak's capital account. Those are the investments
necessary to build the infrastructure, buy the equipment, update the
rail signals, to upgrade the trackage that we have down there. We need
more investment in the capital account so that we can operate more
efficiently.
The bill does not include any funding for Amtrak's capital needs
because we believe the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth,
is currently seeking to provide for these needs through the
reconciliation process. I know the chairman and I have a commitment
that this is going to be taking place. I would only point out Senator
Shelby's decision not to put any more capital funding in this bill was
because he, as I said earlier, believed that Senator Roth was going to
take care of it in the finance package. I hope that that ultimately
gets to be the case, because that would provide Amtrak with a stable
source of funding to address their capital needs over a period of
several years, get that railroad up to the level that it ought to be in
a country as great as ours.
Last, Mr. President, I commend my colleague and friend, Senator
Shelby,
[[Page S8183]]
for his excellent work in his first year as chairman of this
subcommittee. He quickly gained a great deal of knowledge about how the
committee functions.
I offered to take over the chairmanship temporarily to show him how,
but he said, no, he would take care of it. We worked together, with our
fine staff--the names of whom Senator Shelby mentioned--to get it done.
When it comes to the distribution of funds for the Member-specific
projects, those projects they put forward as being critical in nature
to their States, Senator Shelby has been fairminded in his allocation
of funds. He sought to accommodate Members' priorities to the best of
the subcommittee's ability, and he has continued to operate that way.
I must say, I tip my hat to the fact that he is determined and has
shown in this first chairmanship year that he can deal in a bipartisan
fashion, and everybody got along. We occasionally had to face up to
some tough discussions, but we always did it in an amicable way and we
got a good bill.
That has been the tradition with the Transportation Subcommittee, and
that is do it in a bipartisan way. The American people don't want to
see us bickering. They want to see us getting things done. They want to
see us function as we are supposed to function. Disagree, if you will,
make the points you have to make, but get the job done. I think it is
fair to say that the Appropriations Committee, on which both of us have
sat for some time, is maintaining almost a revolutionary pace in terms
of getting the job done this year, and I am proud to be part of it and
proud to work with my colleagues on the committee.
With that, Mr. President, I hope we can move this bill with
expediency. I yield the floor.
Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Amendment No. 1022
(Purpose: To direct a transit fare study)
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered on
behalf of the Senators from New York, Senator D'Amato and Senator
Moynihan, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. D'Amato, for
himself and Mr. Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered
1022.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Out of the funds made available under this Act to the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Authority through the
Federal Transit Administration, the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Authority shall perform a study to ascertain
the costs and benefits of instituting an integrated fare
system for commuters who use both the Metro North Railroad or
the Long Island Rail Road and New York City subway or bus
systems. This study shall examine creative proposals for
improving the flow of passengers between city transit systems
and commuter rail systems, including free transfers,
discounts, congestion-pricing, and other positive
inducements. The study also must include estimates of
potential benefits to the environment, to energy conservation
and to revenue enhancement through increased commuter rail
and transit ridership, as well as other tangible benefits. A
report describing the results of this study shall be
submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee within 45
days of enactment of this Act.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I see the distinguished manager of the
legislation, Senator Shelby, here. And I would like to take this
opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished
Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. I will be glad to comply.
Mr. CHAFEE. I want to start off, Mr. President, by saying to Senator
Shelby that I am very pleased that this legislation has come to the
Senate floor. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly discuss
a project of great importance to my home State of Rhode Island.
Included within S. 1048 is $10 million for the Rhode Island freight
rail development project commonly known as the Third Track. I would
like to express my gratitude to the subcommittee chairman, the manager
of the bill, Senator Shelby, who has agreed to include this funding in
his subcommittee's bill. And I see the distinguished ranking member of
the committee, and I would also like to express my thanks to him
likewise for support of this legislation.
Earlier this year Senator Shelby was kind enough to take time to
listen to Rhode Island's Governor, Lincoln Almond, Senator Reed from
Rhode Island, and myself as we outlined the benefits of the Third Track
project. And, Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
say that Senator Reed has been very interested and very supportive of
all efforts in connection with this Third Track.
The Third Track is a $120 million project that will upgrade 22 miles
of rail line between Quonset Point-Davisville, and Central Falls, RI.
It is needed to accommodate two impending changes that are occurring on
this rail line: First, the increased passenger rail traffic and more
passenger trains that will result from Amtrak's New Haven-Boston
electrification project--that is the first problem that has arisen--
and, secondly, the larger freight cars that will operate along the
line.
The Third Track represents a tremendous potential for economic growth
and job creation in Rhode Island. It plays a vital role in the State's
development of the Quonset-Davisville Industrial Park and making that
into a premier commerce park and international cargo point.
Mr. President, let us take a brief look at recent developments
associated with this Third Track. In just the past year, some 19 new
tenants and four others have expanded their operations and have
invested over $16 million and brought 500 new jobs to the Quonset-
Davisville Industrial Park.
It is conservatively estimated that development of the port and of
the park will yield in excess of 15,000 good-paying jobs to Rhode
Island. The Third Track is a key element in what is not surprisingly
one of our State's most promising economic development projects.
To date, Congress has appropriated $13 million for the Third Track.
Another $42 million is budgeted over the next 4 years, including the
$10 million within the bill before the Senate today.
Rhode Island's voters, on their part, in order to fulfill the State's
50-50 funding matching requirement, passed a bond referendum last
November allocating $50 million to this Third Track. I might say, Mr.
President, a $50 million bond issue is a substantial one for our small
State of little fewer than a million people.
The Third Track represents great hope for economic growth in Rhode
Island at a time when our manufacturing job base continues to erode.
I again thank Chairman Shelby for his support and also thank the
distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Lautenberg, for
his support, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. I would like to respond to that.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the work of the distinguished
senior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in bringing to my
attention--and also to Senator Lautenberg's attention--the needs of his
State in dealing with this economic development project.
I did have the opportunity, at Senator Chafee's request, to meet with
Senator Chafee, the Governor, and the junior Senator, Senator Reed,
regarding this project. I also met with Senator Chafee on numerous
occasions as we talked about, ``Would funding for this project be
included in the bill?'' I assured him that it would, and for a good
reason.
This is a sound project for the people of Rhode Island. We
investigated it on
[[Page S8184]]
the committee and found that it makes a lot of sense. And as Senator
Chafee has pointed out, the people of Rhode Island are also putting up
a lot of money through a bond issue of $50 million. And $50 million is
a lot of money for a State of around 1 million. And I want to
acknowledge his work in this regard and say that we are pleased that we
have been successful in identifying resources for this project. And I
believe it is going to be very, very positive for the State of Rhode
Island.
I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from Rhode
Island in the future.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased also, Mr. President, to support this
project. And I have reviewed the plans several times over these last
couple of years. It increases the ability of that port to function and
to expedite the movement of freight from the port into the main line
system. Otherwise, there are some problems with heights and of the cars
that can pass underneath the bridges, so it needs some work. And we
hope that Rhode Island will get this completed.
We all know that essential to our economic development is the
capacity to get people and goods to and from the business opportunities
that either exist or want to be developed. So this one sounds like a
pretty good idea.
Senator Shelby said it. He said we have heard from Senator Chafee
periodically, regularly. We have heard from the Governor of the State
who, if I remember, is about 6' 4'', something of that nature. They
made sure they brought him in. We got the message, Mr. President.
Senator Reed was also involved. So it is a unified delegation. And they
are working hard to get it done. And we want to help wherever we can.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Again, I do want to thank the two distinguished managers
of the legislation, the bill. The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Shelby, has been very, very helpful, and as I indicated, very
responsive. And we are very appreciative. And likewise, Senator
Lautenberg, as mentioned, we have--I have to be careful in my use of
words. I was going to say ``pestered'' him, but we have implored him or
spent a good deal of time pointing out the virtues of this project. And
the way they both have responded makes us very grateful.
And I say to Senator Shelby, I want to thank you for your kind
remarks and the work you have done on this, and Senator Lautenberg
likewise.
So, if nobody else seeks the floor----
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, if I could add a few more comments to the
remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. The
Senator from Rhode Island is a distinguished veteran of the Senate. He
has been here and has made his presence felt. He chairs a very
important committee in the Senate--the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I have had the privilege and the pleasure of working with
him on a number of issues both on and off this committee. I can tell
you, he has been the catalyst for the money for Rhode Island here in
the Senate. Let us set the record straight. Thank you.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we can't let this opportunity go
without saying that we know that the Senator from Rhode Island is very
much engaged in discussions of ISTEA. And New Jersey likes ISTEA.
Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. We like it in the summer and we like it in the
winter. We want to help the State of Rhode Island, the important State
that it is despite its tiny size. My State is only a wisp larger, and
we have about eight times the number of people. But we know that the
good Senator from Rhode Island will remember Alabama and New Jersey and
how we all work together to get things done. Thank you.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is getting more and more expensive.
So if nobody else seeks the floor at this time, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Transportation appropriations bill and to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator
Shelby, about the ability of the State of Maine to use funding from
this legislation to conduct a National Environmental Protection Act
study for improving the travel corridor from Houlton to Fort Kent, ME.
Under S. 1048, as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
the State of Maine is expected to receive a much-needed increase of
almost $17 million for vital highway programs. This will bring the
total for the next fiscal year to approximately $105 million. This
additional funding--the $17 million--will enable the Maine Department
of Transportation to fund a number of high-priority transportation
projects, including the NEPA study, which will help my State
tremendously.
I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking minority member
of the subcommittee for their hard work and leadership in ensuring that
significant transportation funding increases are available, at a time
when setting priorities for scarce tax dollars has never been more
challenging. For large rural States like my home State of Maine, the
funding in this legislation provides the money necessary to build,
repair, maintain, and improve our roads, which are absolutely essential
to expanding our economy and to providing our citizens with better job
opportunities into the 21st century.
In fact, in Maine, studies have shown that approximately 80 percent
of all economic development has occurred within 10 miles of our
interstate highway. Consequently, it is not surprising that economic
activity in central and northern Aroostook County, where I am from,
which is not served by the Interstate Highway System, has lagged far
behind those areas of the State with access to the four-lane
interstate.
Earlier this year, the State of Maine completed an initial
feasibility study that evaluated several different options for
improving the travel corridor between Houlton and Fort Kent, a distance
of roughly 125 miles. The initial study was funded by Congress with an
appropriation of $800,000 about 3 years ago.
Now, the State is prepared to take the next step in this process,
which is to conduct a NEPA study on the various options. This study
will, among other things, analyze the traffic demand for preliminary
design engineering, assess the noise and air quality impact, develop
and review alternatives within the corridor, update the construction
cost analysis, and prepare an environmental impact statement.
The need for this funding, Mr. President, is crystal clear. Upgrading
the transportation infrastructure in Aroostook County, the largest
county in my State, is essential to strengthening its economy. For
example, in order to compete effectively, Aroostook County potato
farmers and lumber industries need to improve their ability to
transport goods efficiently from northern Maine to their markets.
Upgrading the transportation system will also spur new economic
development and business investment. The tourism industry, particularly
snowmobiling, has absolutely exploded in recent years. But if it is to
continue to grow, this promising industry needs an improved road system
to bring more snowmobilers to Aroostook County.
Similarly, the people of Aroostook County are moving forward in their
efforts to redevelop the site of the former Loring Air Force Base in
Limestone, ME. An enhanced highway system is absolutely vital to their
ability to attract new economic investment that can best utilize the
base's outstanding facilities and help to replace the thousands of jobs
that were lost when the base closed.
Proceeding with this additional study at this time will help us
determine how best to improve the travel corridor, and it ultimately
will make it easier for northern Maine to compete for new business
investments, to find
[[Page S8185]]
new market opportunities for agricultural, manufactured, and timber-
related products, and to produce increased tourism opportunities, as
well.
I just want to take this opportunity to confirm with the chairman of
the subcommittee my understanding that the State of Maine, which has
included this project as part of its 20-year statewide transportation
plan, can use a portion of the roughly $17 million in higher Federal
highway funding from this legislation to pursue and conduct the NEPA
study.
Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor to the chairman
of the subcommittee so that he may respond to my inquiry.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Senator Collins has been in touch with our
subcommittee throughout the year as we prepared the 1998 Transportation
appropriation bill. She has talked to us more than once. In particular,
the Senator from Maine has made clear that securing available sources
of funding for the NEPA study is a very high priority for her and the
people in the northern part of her State of Maine. The Senator has also
been a strong supporter of higher funding in fiscal year 1998 to meet
other necessary transportation priorities on behalf of the State of
Maine as well.
Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to confirm the inquiry
of the Senator and to reiterate that the State of Maine is clearly able
to use highway funds provided in this act, subject to ISTEA
reauthorization, to conduct a NEPA study. I believe that the Senator
from Maine has made a compelling case for moving ahead with this study
and, in fact, I believe that the NEPA study would be a good use of a
portion of Maine's highway funding.
Mr. President, Senator Collins has made it very clear to the
subcommittee how important improving the travel corridor in northern
Maine is, and I share her view that this NEPA study would be a very
high priority for funding in 1998.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his assurances
and express my gratitude and thanks to him and his staff for their
assistance in this matter.
I also want to again applaud his efforts to ensure that we have
adequate funding for our transportation infrastructure, which is so
vital to this Nation's prosperity.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
be the only first-degree amendments in order to S. 1048 other than the
pending amendments, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree
amendments. I send the list to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:
Bob Smith: Section 127 of title 23.
Hollings: Relevant.
Hollings: Relevant.
Graham: Transit.
Daschle/Johnson: Relevant.
managers package
Shelby amendment.
Lautenberg amendment.
Durbin: Relevant.
Graham/Levin Sense-of-Senate: Relevant.
Byrd: Relevant.
Stevens: Relevant.
Kerrey: Relevant.
Boxer: Railroad.
Chafee: Relevant.
Chafee: Relevant.
Warner: Relevant.
Warner: Relevant.
Specter: Relevant.
Enzi: Relevant.
Enzi: Relevant.
Mack: ISTEA reauthorization.
Abraham: Relevant.
D'Amato: Relevant.
Frist: Relevant.
Gorton: Relevant.
Bond: Relevant.
Brownback: Relevant.
Moseley-Braun: Motorcycle helmets.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I further ask that when all of the above
amendments have been disposed of, S. 1048 be advanced to third reading
and the Senate immediately turn to H.R. 2169, the House companion bill,
all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1048, as
amended, be inserted, H.R. 2169 be immediately advanced to third
reading, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage, all without further
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Finally, I ask that following the vote on passage of the
transportation appropriations bill, the Senate insist on its
amendments, request a conference with the House, the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and S. 1048
be placed back on the calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
Senate resume consideration of S. 1048 immediately following the
stacked votes at 2:15 on Tuesday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. For the information of all Senators, the managers intend
to remain in session until all amendments are offered and debated with
respect to the Transportation bill. Therefore, Members should expect
final disposition of the Transportations appropriations bill on
Wednesday morning.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I may say to my colleague, the
chairman, I will just take the floor for a couple minutes and say that
we have now been here 2 hours. It was the understanding when we left
last week that the Transportation Subcommittee's bill would be up this
evening with an opportunity to offer amendments and consider the
business of the bill. We have had hardly a response.
I do not have to lecture my colleagues, certainly, but this is the
last week before we adjourn for August and get home to do the things we
have to do with our constituents. I hope we can help move the process
along. We ask our colleagues to join in to get the business of the
people done, to get those amendments up here as quickly as we can
tomorrow.
We intend--and I discussed this with Senator Shelby--to be here long
enough to get the work done, but we cannot do it unless people offer
their amendments and take advantage of the opportunity to make those
suggestions that they think improve the bill.
So I send out this plea, Mr. President, probably to those who are
just turning off their TV sets around the Capitol and say that we hope
you will remember the bill will be open again tomorrow after the votes
which are now listed and that we can get to work on passing the
appropriations bill for 1998, one that we can send over to the House
and get a conference on. We are moving along at a very good pace with
our appropriations bills for next year, and we ought to continue to
help that pace, get done, and let the people across the country know
the appropriate investments are going to be made in the things that are
included in this bill.
With that simple admonition, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________