[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8249-S8258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998.
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 1022
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1022 to
S. 1048, the Transportation appropriations bill.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I know of no further discussion on
amendment No. 1022.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1022) was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 1035 through 1044, En Bloc
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send a managers' package of amendments
to the desk and ask that they be considered, agreed to, and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments
numbered 1035 through 1044, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 1035 through 1044) were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 1035
(Purpose: To extend the expiration date of a general provision from the
fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations act)
On page 52, at line 1, insert the following:
Sec. 339. Subsection (d)(4) of 49 U.S.C. 31112 is amended
by striking ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting ``February
28, 1998''.
____
amendment no. 1036
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to sec. 332 of the bill and to
make minor funding changes to the bill)
On page 12, line 19, strike ``$286,000,000'' and insert:
``$190,000,000''.
On page 23, line 10, strike ``$90,000,000'' and insert:
``$190,000,000''.
On page 24, line 8, strike ``$2,310,000'' and insert:
``$2,210,000''.
On page 24, line 10, strike ``$2,310,000'' and insert:
``$2,210,000''.
On page 24, line 19, strike ``$2,000,000,000'' and insert:
``$2,008,000,000''.
On page 25, line 5, strike ``$780,000,000'' and insert:
``$788,000,000''.
On page 46, line 16, strike the word ``persons'' and
insert: ``passengers''.
On page 46, line 18, strike ``363,000'' and insert:
``300,000''.
On page 26, before line 20, insert the following:
``$4,645,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas Junction Bridge
project;''.
____
amendment no. 1037
(Purpose: To recognize transit bus projects)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
Sec. 340. Of funds made available under this Act for
discretionary grants for replacement, rehabilitation, and
purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction
of bus-related facilities, up to $20,000,000 may be provided
to the State of Michigan and $12,000,000 to the State of
Illinois.
____
amendment no. 1038
(Purpose: To provide for a study of the metropolitan planning process
in Denver)
On page 24, line 3, strike the period at the end of the
line and insert the following: ``: Provided, That within the
funds made available under this head, $500,000 may be made
available to the Colorado Department of Transportation to
study the metropolitan planning process and organization in
the Denver metropolitan area. The study shall be based on a
scope of work agreed to by Douglas County (on behalf of
selected Denver regional county governments and municipal
governments), the Denver Regional Council of Governments, and
the Colorado Department of Transportation. Within 24 months
of enactment of this Act, the recommendations of this study
will be transmitted to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.''
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1039
(Purpose: To make a technical correction relating to the Right-or-Way
Revolving Fund)
On page 15, line 4, after the word ``loans'' insert: ``to
be repaid with other than Federal funds''.
AMENDMENT NO. 1040
(Purpose: To clarify Sec. 335 of the bill)
On page 50, line 11, insert the following:
(D) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any
existing statutes of the several States that define the
obligations of such States to native Hawaiians, native
Americans, or Alaskan natives in connection with ceded lands,
except to make clear that airport revenues may not be used to
satisfy any such obligations.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1041
(Purpose: To facilitate the application of the pilot record-sharing
provisions of title 49, United States Code, added by the Federal
Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, to air carriers operating non-
scheduled operations under part 135 of the FAA regulations)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. 3 . PILOT RECORD SHARING.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall--
(1) work with air carriers conducting nonscheduled
operations under part 135 of the Federal Aviation
Administration's regulations (14 C.F.R. 135.1 et seq.) to
implement the requirements of section 44936(f) of title 49,
United States Code, effectively and expeditiously; and
(2) implement those requirements with respect to such air
carriers not later than February 1, 1998, or sooner if, in
working with such air carriers, the Administrator determines
that the provisions of that section can be effectively
implemented for such air carriers.
____
amendment no. 1042
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to exercise the
exemption authority under section 41714 of title 49, United States
Code, with respect to certain air service between slot-controlled
airports subject to that authority and nonhub points, within 120 days
after receiving a request for such an exemption)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. 3 . EXEMPTION AUTHORITY FOR AIR SERVICE TO SLOT-
CONTROLLED AIRPORTS.
Section 41714 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(i) Expeditious Consideration of Certain Exemption
Requests.--Within 120 days after receiving an application for
an exemption under subsection (a)(2) to improve air service
between a nonhub airport (as defined in section 41731(a)(4))
and a high density airport subject to the exemption authority
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall grant or deny the
exemption. The Secretary shall notify the United States
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the United States House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the grant or denial
within 14 calendar days after the determination and state the
reasons for the determination.''.
____
amendment no. 1043
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the imminent
expiration of highway and mass transit spending authorizations and the
function of this bill)
On page 51, after line 25, add the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING REAUTHORIZATION OF
HIGHWAY AND MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) on October 1, 1997, authorization for most of the
programs authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), including mass
transit programs, will expire;
(2) States, local governments, and the national economy
depend on Federal investment in the transportation
infrastructure of the United States;
(3) it is the duty of Congress to reauthorize the programs
to ensure that the investment continues to flow and that
there is no interruption of critical transportation services
or construction; and
(4) the public and Congress should have a substantial
opportunity to review, comment on, and comprehensively debate
committee-reported proposals to reauthorize the programs well
in advance of their expiration to ensure that the programs
adequately reflect the needs of the United States and the
contributions of the States.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that this Act should not be considered to be a substitute for
a comprehensive measure reauthorizing highway and mass
transit spending programs and should not be interpreted to
authorize or otherwise direct the distribution of funds to
the States under expiring formulas under title 23 or 49,
United States Code, in fiscal year 1998.
[[Page S8250]]
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
important sense of the Senate. It should help to dispel any concerns
that Members may have had regarding the Transportation appropriations
bill and its potential effect on the ongoing reauthorization process
for highway and transit funding. This measure puts the Senate's
intention on record that none of the funds in S. 1048 are to be
distributed according to the old, unfair formulas.
Mr. President, the State of Michigan has long been contributing more
into the highway trust fund than it receives in Federal money for
highways or mass transit, due to the old discriminatory formulas. The
changes to previous law included the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] slightly improved Michigan's return.
Unfortunately, it largely continued the decades-old unfair pattern of
sending significantly more to small States than they contributed
without any valid justification. My State's problem has been further
compounded by limitations on obligations through the appropriations
process that reduce our total dollar return. As a result, our average
ratio of contributions to obligations for highway funding under ISTEA
has been approximately 80.5 percent, while mass transit has been even
worse with an average ratio of 42.3 percent.
I am pleased that the committee's bill provides nearly a $3 billion
higher obligation limitation on highway spending. Unfortunately, a
chart has been included in the Record at the beginning of debate on
this bill which implies that those funds will be distributed according
to the old, expiring ISTEA formulas. That is incorrect and the
subcommittee chairman has stressed that the chart was for illustrative
purposes only and not intended to direct these funds. I encourage
Members to ignore that distribution. Michigan would, because of the
increased obligation limitation, receive at least an additional
approximately $100 million in fiscal year 1998, if ISTEA's average
formula distribution was still in effect, over last year. It would be
difficult for any State not to get an increase when the obligation
limitation is raised, as it has been in the bill before us.
However, I encourage my colleagues not to focus on the formulas of
the past. There are at least five major reauthorization proposals to be
considered for fiscal year 1998 and beyond. Of those five, Michigan
would do best under the Transportation Empowerment Act [TEA-2] and
could have approximately $175 million more in obligation authority
available in fiscal year 1998 assuming this bill's obligation
limitation than in fiscal year 1997. Next best would be the STEP-21
proposal providing about $141 million more in fiscal year 1998. ISTEA
does not work for Michigan and many other States, and Members should
analyze these other proposals to determine whether they provide more
fairness.
Mr. President, this sense of the Senate makes it very clear that S.
1048 does not reauthorize highway or mass transit spending programs.
The Senate is still waiting for the Environment and Public Works, and
the Banking Committees, to produce fair bills that will allow the
continued flow of infrastructure investment dollars to the States from
the funds provided in S. 1048. These bills need to be provided to the
full Senate well in advance of the October 1, 1997, authorization
expiration of these programs. No Member of the Senate or the public
should be precluded from the opportunity to fully and carefully review
the proposals reported by the committees.
Recently, I received a letter from the president of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO], who
is very concerned that Congress' ``delay [in moving a reauthorization
bill] will negatively impact our Nation's transportation system and our
economy.'' He is right to be concerned. There is no committee-reported
proposal for the Senate to consider and we are about to recess until
September. Unless, by some miracle, a fair and equitable bill is
reported the first day we return, Congress is very unlikely to meet the
October 1 deadline. No Senator should be placed in the position of
supporting an unfair bill to meet that deadline because the Committees
have failed to act punctually.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
amendment no. 1044
(Purpose: To provide for the development and operation of the
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System)
On page 4, line 11, strike the numeral and insert
``$2,435,400,000''.
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
Sec. 3 . (a) As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation,
acting for the Department of Transportation, may take receipt
of such equipment and sites of the Ground Wave Emergency
Network (referred to in this section as ``GWEN'') as the
Secretary of Transportation determines to be necessary for
the establishment of a nationwide system to be known as the
``Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System''
(referred to in this section as ``NDGPS'').
(b) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may establish the
NDGPS. In establishing the NDGPS, the Secretary of
Transportation may--
(1) if feasible, reuse GWEN equipment and sites transferred
to the Department of Transportation under subsection (a);
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, use contractor
services to install the NDGPS;
(3) modify the positioning system operated by the Coast
Guard at the time of the establishment of the NDGPS to
integrate the reference stations made available pursuant to
subsection (a);
(4) in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce, ensure
that the reference stations referred to in paragraph (3) are
compatible with, and integrated into, the Continuously
Operating Reference Station (commonly referred to as
``CORS'') system of the National Geodetic Survey of the
Department of Commerce; and
(5) in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce,
investigate the use of the NDGPS reference stations for the
Global Positioning System Integrated Precipitable Water Vapor
System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation may--
(1) manage and operate the NDGPS;
(2) ensure that the service of the NDGPS is provided
without the assessment of any user fee; and
(3) in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, ensure
that the use of the NDGPS is denied to any enemy of the
United States.
(d) In any case in which the Secretary of Transportation
determines that contracting for the maintenance of 1 or more
NDGPS reference stations is cost-effective, the Secretary of
Transportation may enter into a contract to provide for that
maintenance.
(e) The Secretary of Transportation may--
(1) in cooperation with appropriate representatives of
private industries and universities and officials of State
governments--
(A) investigate improvements (including potential
improvements) to the NDGPS;
(B) develop standards for the NDGPS; and
(C) sponsor the development of new applications for the
NDGPS; and
(2) provide for the continual upgrading of the NDGPS to
improve performance and address the needs of--
(A) the Federal Government;
(B) State and local governments; and
(C) the general public.
Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend
the chairman of the Appropriate Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator
Shelby, for the work he has done on this bill. It is not easy to
balance the competing interests in any appropriations bill, but I think
it is even more difficult on transportation appropriations. I would
also like to call attention to one area of the Senate's bill which is
very different than the House version.
The Federal Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS] program, which
began in the late 1980's, is sponsored by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA], the National Weather Service [NWS], and the
Department of Defense [DOD] and currently includes approximately 860
ASOS units. For its part, the FAA has completed procurement of its 539
baseline ASOS network. Of these units, 476 were installed, yet only 129
systems had been commissioned as of December 21, 1996.
Specifically, the Senate bill would provide $24.85 million for the
Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS]. This amount is $10 million
more than the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] requested.
According to the committee report, $14.85 million is to be used to
commission systems that have already been purchased.
The $14.85 million requested by the administration would pay for
getting these systems on-line, providing essential weather services to
airports that now have them. The House language on this system is
similar. I think it makes sense to do this. After all, the Federal
Government purchase these units. They might as well be used.
Where the House and Senate language differ is in the use of the funds
that the administration did not request. The House bill would provide
[[Page S8251]]
$7.5 million for procurement of additional weather observing systems
and direct the FAA to compare costs and capabilities of similar systems
and to purchase new systems only after full and open competition
between all qualified vendors.
In contrast, the Senate report provides FAA with an additional $10
million to purchase 50 new ASOS units. If the past is an accurate
indicator, these units will sit idle until FAA finds the funds to get
them running. In essence, what we are doing is purchasing technology
with great potential but fraught with high maintenance costs and
unusable for a number of years for every airport that needs a weather
observation system, when many airports can use off-the-shelf technology
that can be used immediately.
In 1995, the General Accounting Office [GAO] released a report on
ASOS. I would like to highlight some of their findings. First, GAO
found that six of the eight sensors in the ASOS system do not meet key
performance specifications. Second, ASOS shortfalls are caused by
contractor failure to deliver products that meet specifications and
Government failure to furnish sufficient equipment. Third, the NWS does
not have adequate personnel or integrated information systems for it to
isolate and correct ASOS failures at FAA sites. Fourth, ASOS does not
satisfy the weather observational needs of many users. And, finally
ASOS users state that incorrect ASOS observations could risk aviation
efficiently and safety. I don't believe that Congress should force the
FAA to purchase more ASOS units until the problems with the ones they
already have can be worked out.
For this reason, I believe the House language on weather observation
systems is a better option for airports. I hope my friend from Alabama
will examine carefully the House approach on this issue and I urge him
to opt for the House's approach to maximize airport safety.
Mr. Shelby. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his statement. I have
listened with interest to his remarks and recognize his concerns. The
Senator from Ohio has raised very compelling arguments and I will
carefully consider his request during the conference committee
deliberations.
child size crash test dummies
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to address the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee regarding the issue of funding for an
innovative research project aimed at developing a child size crash test
dummy which will be undertaken by a collaborative private sector group
that includes several Pennsylvania universities.
The project will develop a new crash test dummy particularly suited
for research on automobile occupant safety because it will generate
data on children's unique biological features and the behavior of
children under crash conditions.
I am advised that the House has provided $100,000 for this purpose
within the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Would the distinguished chairman be willing to work
with me and our House counterparts to explore funding for this
important safety initiative?
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania correctly
notes that this will be an issue we address in conference with the
House and I would be glad to work with him on exploring funding
possibilities for an initiative which could protect our children from
injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in order to engage the
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Shelby, in a brief colloquy regarding the Northeast Illinois Regional
Commuter Railroad Corporation--Metra. I commend both Senators Shelby
and Lautenberg for their tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's
transportation systems. And I congratulate them on bringing this bill
to the floor.
Mr. President, as Senator Shelby knows, Metra is the second largest
commuter rail system in the country, carrying over 270,000 riders a
day. Metra's 12 rail lines serve more than 100 towns and municipalities
with 238 stations and a stop at O'Hare International Airport. It
maintains a 97 percent on time performance while operating over 500
route miles. In short, Metra is an effective, first-class transit
system that fills an enormous commuter need in the Northern Illinois/
Chicago region.
Metra anticipates that by the year 2020, the population of its
service territory will grow by 25 percent and employment in that area
will increase 37 percent. In order to prepare for this growth and meet
additional needs, Metra plans to expand and upgrade service on three
lines. Specifically, Metra plans to upgrade and expand North Central
Service and the Metra Milwaukee West Line; upgrade and extend the South
West Service to Manhattan, Illinois; and upgrade and extend the Union
Pacific line to LaFox and Elburn, IL. The total cost of this project is
$301 million over 6 years.
The House included $5 million in the fiscal year 1998 Transportation
appropriations bill for engineering and design on tracks, signals,
bridges, and earthwork associated with this project.
Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Shelby if he considers
Metra to be a priority new start transit project and if he and Senator
Lautenberg would be willing to work to include the House language in
conference.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from Illinois. As Senator Durbin
knows, the committee has worked with him over the years to fund various
Metra expansion projects, most recently a new service line--the North
Central Service. I appreciate his leadership on this project.
Metra expansion is vitally important to the Chicago/Northern Illinois
service region. The Metra project is certainly a priority new start
transit project that is worthy of Federal funding.
I will work with Senator Lautenberg and our House colleagues in the
conference committee to make sure that the Senator's interests in this
important project are represented at the conference committee.
I look forward to working with Senator Durbin on this project in the
years to come.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year
1998.
I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Shelby, for bringing his first transportation appropriations
bill to the full Senate. I commend the chairman for bringing the Senate
a balanced bill.
As all Members know, transportation spending was a priority area
within the bipartisan budget agreement. With passage of this bill, we
begin to increase funding for our Nation's infrastructure as we
promised during negotiations on the balanced budget agreement.
The Senate-reported bill provides $12.6 billion budget authority [BA]
and $13.2 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the Department
of Transportation, including Federal-aid highways, mass transit,
aviation activities, the U.S. Coast Guard, and transportation safety
agencies.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other adjustments
are taken into account, the bill totals $12.7 billion in budget
authority and $37.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.
The reported bill is $0.2 billion in budget authority and $3 million
in outlays below the subcommittee's section 602(b) allocation.
This spending is $0.5 billion in budget authority below the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the subcommittee, and
$0.15 billion in outlays above the president's request.
The Senate-reported bill is $0.6 billion in discretionary BA and $0.2
billion in outlays below the House version of the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring on this bill be inserted in to the Record.
I support the bill and urge its adoption.
S. 1048, TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............................................ -- 11,957 -- 698 12,655
Outlays..................................................... 59 36,890 -- 665 37,614
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ -- 12,157 -- 698 12,855
Outlays..................................................... 59 36,893 -- 665 37,617
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ 300 12,173 -- 698 13,171
Outlays..................................................... 299 36,502 -- 665 37,466
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ 300 12,217 -- 698 13,215
Outlays..................................................... 299 36,855 -- 665 37,819
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO--
Senate 602(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ -- (200) -- -- (200)
[[Page S8252]]
Outlays..................................................... -- (3) -- -- (3)
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ (300) (216) -- -- (516)
Outlays..................................................... (240) 388 -- -- 148
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ (300) (260) -- -- (560)
Outlays..................................................... (240) 35 -- -- (205)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to engage in
a discussion with the bill manager on an amendment that I filed
yesterday. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?
Mr. SHELBY: Yes, I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator knows, I filed an
amendment yesterday that I hope will not be necessary. The issue
concerns truck weight limitations on interstate highways and potential
sanctions on the States of New Hampshire and Maine.
Last year's appropriations legislation for the Department of
Transportation included an amendment sponsored by Senators Cohen,
Snowe, Gregg, and myself which established a moratorium on the
Department of Transportation's authority to withhold highway funds from
New Hampshire and Maine because of their allowance of heavier trucks on
Interstate 95. That moratorium is set to expire on September 1, 1997.
Under section 127 of our surface transportation law, States may not
allow trucks over 80,000 pounds on the Interstate System without
risking the loss of highway funds, even though many State roads allow
100,000-pound trucks, as is the case in New Hampshire and Maine. While
I do not wish to get into a policy discussion on truck weights, there
is a safety argument to be made in keeping these heavier trucks on the
Interstate System, which is built to higher standards. That debate
should be appropriately reserved for ISTEA reauthorization, currently
under way in the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is there
that we will debate any proposed changes to Federal truck weight
limits.
Nevertheless, we are faced with the expiration of the sanctions
moratorium on September 1 and the fact that the Environment and Public
Works Committee has not yet dealt with this issue in ISTEA. It is for
these reasons that I now seek assurances from the Transportation
Department that sanctions would not be imposed before ISTEA is
reauthorized and fiscal year 1998 apportionments are released.
Is it the Senator's understanding that the Department of
Transportation would not have the authority to withhold highway funds
from New Hampshire and Maine for the remainder of this fiscal year or
until such time as the highway program is reauthorized and fiscal year
1998 funds are apportioned to the States?
Mr. SHELBY: Yes, that is correct. There would not be an opportunity
for sanctions under section 127 of our surface transportation law until
fiscal year 1998 highway funds are apportioned, which would not occur
until Congress reauthorizes the surface transportation programs.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I want to thank the manager of this bill
for that clarification. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on the
matter of guidance for the distribution of fiscal year 1998 highway and
transit appropriations provided by the bill before us.
It is my understanding that S. 1048 would not, if it became law,
direct or otherwise assume that the allocation and apportionment of
highway obligation authority to the States from the highway trust fund
shall be distributed under the expiring ISTEA formulas or any other
distribution scheme. Would the chairman confirm that understanding?
Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Michigan is correct. This bill simply
provides an overall limitation on States' highway obligations from the
highway trust fund of $21.8 billion and is completely silent on its
distribution among the States.
Mr. LEVIN. So, just to be clear, there is no way to accurately
determine what share or total that any State can expect to receive of
that $21.8 billion in fiscal year 1998. Is that correct?
Mr. SHELBY. Again, the Senator from Michigan is correct. That
distribution will be determined when Congress works out whatever
transportation law will replace ISTEA.
Mr. LEVIN. As a Senator from a donor State, I appreciate the
Senator's remarks. I am looking forward to improving Michigan's return
on gas tax dollars contributed into the highway trust fund and wanted
to be certain that Senate action on this bill did not preclude or
prejudge that debate.
From my review of the mass transit provisions in the bill, it appears
that the committee has assumed the old distribution formulas and
allocation method. This is a problem for Michigan, and perhaps the
chairman's State too, since Michigan is a significant donor State in
terms of receipts of transit grants versus contributions to the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. In fact, the Michigan
Department of Transportation calculates that Michigan's return at
approximately $.53 on the gas tax dollar. According to the Community
Transportation Association of America, Alabama receives approximately
$.16 per gas tax dollar.
I am particularly concerned about section 49 U.S.C. 5309(m), which
treats bus and bus facilities very poorly in relation to other
categories. And, I believe that section 5307 and related sections
should be modified to more accurately reflect States' contribution into
the mass transit account. These expiring sections and others in title
49 need to be rewritten to provide greater fairness to States that do
not have subways or major fixed guideway facilities.
Does the Committee's bill assume that funds appropriated in this bill
for mass transit grant and loan formulas and other mass transit program
will be distributed according to the authorizations in title 49 that
expire on October 1, 1997?
Mr. SHELBY. We have assumed current law with respect to transit
programs, until such time as a reauthorization bill is enacted. With
respect to formula and discretionary grants, the bill sets obligation
limitations on contract authority for both programs and appropriates
$190 million for formula grants. It is our understanding that the only
significant amount of contract authority for transit programs that is
expected to carry over into fiscal year 1998 is $392 million for
transit new start projects. In the absence of a reauthorization bill,
the only significant new funding for transit formula and discretionary
grant programs next year would be the amount appropriated for formula
grants in this bill and the amount remaining available for new start
projects. The Federal Transit Administration would apportion the
appropriated funds for formula grants according to current formulas,
and the new start funding would be distributed based on statutory
direction in this bill. Both those distributions would be revisited
when reauthorization legislation has been enacted and, presumably, has
created new contract authority for these programs.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman for his willingness to clarify these
matters, though the mass transit situation is very unfortunate from an
equity point of view. This is obviously not the best situation. We need
to move an authorization bill for both highway and mass transit
programs before October 1, 1997. Debate and resolution of that matter
is long overdue. I realize these are difficult and significant matters
and that the balanced budget agreement has locked in a lower level of
spending on transportation than most of us would have liked, but we
will need sufficient time to analyze and debate whatever bill that the
Senate Environment and Public Works, and the Banking Committees report
to the Senate. It would be very, very unfortunate, if there is an
attempt to present a bill to the Senate without adequate time to
consider it before the October 1 deadline.
saint lawrence seaway
Mr. KOHL. Let me take this opportunity to thank both the chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators Shelby and Lautenberg, and
[[Page S8253]]
their staffs, for all their hard work in putting together the
transportation appropriations bill. Every Member of the Senate should
greatly appreciate the bipartisan and good faith manner in which they
tackled the daunting task of meeting our Nation's infrastructure
priorities.
There are many transportation programs and priorities funded by this
bill that are important to my State of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes
region. I would like to take a moment to discuss one particular Great
Lakes priority, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
[SLSDC].
Mr. President, since its creation in 1959, SLSDC has provided safe,
efficient, and reliable commercial shipping and lockage services
through the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The Seaway serves as the gatekeeper
for all oceangoing vessel traffic coming to and from the Great Lakes.
As such, SLSDC's work is vital to the Great Lakes region, which is
responsible for nearly half of America's industrial and agricultural
output. That output translates into iron ore for America's steel miles,
low-sulphur coal for public utilities and Midwestern export grain for
the world market. Simply put, the economic viability of the Great Lakes
and the country depends on the efficient operation of the Seaway and
SLSDC. Of equal importance are the environmental and safety functions
performed through the Seaway.
As you know, the administration has proposed that SLSDC be
restructured as a performance-based organization [PBO]. I have endorsed
this proposal as a critical and innovative step in ensuring the long-
term stability of commercial shipping in the Seaway System and
throughout the Great Lakes region, and am currently working with other
Great Lakes' Senators to prepare the necessary authorizing legislation.
Last year, in the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year
1997, the Senate included a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that the
Congress should consider such legislation in the 105th Congress. We are
hopeful that the Senate will approve the PBO legislation before the end
of this session, although we recognize that there's much work left to
be done.
As you know, one of the unique features of the PBO initiative is the
financing mechanism, which would link SLSDC's funding level to
performance--that is, the annual funding level would be calculated
according to average tonnage figures through the Seaway. Thus, the PBO
initiative authorizing legislation will move SLSDC financing from
appropriated funds to an automatic, annual, performance-based payment.
The administration's budget request reflected this distinction by not
including a request for appropriated funds for SLSDC. I bring this up
for discussion simply to avoid confusion as to the appropriations level
included in the Senate transportation appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1998.
Mr. SHELBY. I'm glad the Senate brought this matter to the attention
of the full Senate. Although you and I discussed this matter during
committee consideration of the bill, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to explain this matter to the rest of our Senate
colleagues. Many details of this new proposed agency performance based
organization structure will have to be sorted out in the authorization
process, including the funding proposal. In order to give the
authorizing committees as much time as possible before making a final
decision regarding this proposal, the Senate Appropriations Committee
did not include any appropriated funds or bill language for the SLSDC
for fiscal year 1998.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate your fair and unbiased assessment of the PBO
initiative, Mr. Chairman. We have every hope of moving the authorizing
legislation this session. However, as you and I both know, Congress can
be unpredictable. Sometimes we advance ideas quickly, and other times,
our work is frustratingly slow. For this reason, I want to reiterate
our understanding that if Congress does not enact PBO authorizing
legislation for SLSDC by the beginning of fiscal year 1998, the Senate
will ensure in conference with the House that SLSDC will be funded.
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, the Senate will ensure that the SLSDC is adequately
funded and has the resources it needs to operate effectively and
efficiently, whether or not the PBO legislation is enacted into law.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chairman.
interstate 4-r program
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished
Senator from Alabama and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey
concerning discretionary funding for the Interstate 4-R Program. The
report accompanying S. 1048 includes language recognizing certain
projects that should receive priority attention when the Federal
Highway Administration awards discretionary grants.
In Frederick, MD, there is a project to upgrade Interstate 70 at its
conjunction with Interstate 270, U.S. 15, U.S. 40, and U.S. 340. The
complicated interchanges of these two expressways and the other U.S.
highways have numerous ramp movements which need to be reconstructed
and upgraded in order to provide efficient and safe access. The current
interchange forces traffic onto local streets jeopardizing safety for
local residents.
I ask my colleagues whether they believe the upgrading of I-70 in
Frederick would qualify as a project that might receive funds under the
Interstate 4-R Program.
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, I believe that the project, as the Senator describes
it, would be an excellent example of the type of work intended to be
funded under this program.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree, Mr. President. The I-70 interchange in
Frederick, MD, is the type of project that is worthy of funding under
the 4-R Program.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleague,
Senator Mikulski, in endorsing the inclusion of I-70/I-270 in
Frederick, MD, on the priority list for discretionary highway funding.
Anyone who drives on I-70 or I-270 in Frederick knows what a serious
traffic and safety problem we have in this area. The highway narrows
from 6 lanes to 4 lanes creating a bottleneck. There are missing
interchanges with I-270 and U.S. 15, forcing cars and trucks onto city
streets and adding to existing congestion; and the substandard
condition of the highway and resulting congestion means accidents and
delays for commuters, interstate truckers, tourists, businesses, and
employers alike. With traffic volumes in the area projected to more
than double in the next 20 years, there has been a clear need to
address this problem. I want to thank the distinguished managers of the
bill for their assurances.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I also want to thank the managers for the courtesy and
their leadership on this legislation.
HARTSFIELD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. COVERDELL. Would the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation yield?
Mr. SHELBY. I would be happy to yield to the senior Senator from
Georgia?
Mr. COVERDELL. The city of Atlanta and Hartsfield International
Airport have requested a $150 million letter of intent, commonly
referred to as an LOI, from the FAA in connection with the construction
of a commuter runway. Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport is the
second busiest airport in the country and a critical link in our
national air transportation system. A major airline headquarted in
Atlanta alone has over 600 flights per day out of Atlanta. Over the
past several years, there has been an increase in delays at the
airport. When Atlanta has a problem with congested air traffic, the
effects ripple throughout the national system. Delays at Hartsfield
create waves of delay across the country. I strongly believe this
project should receive priority consideration from the FAA for an LOI
and would ask the chairman and the ranking member, the senior Senator
from New Jersey, to support this request.
Mr. CLELAND. Would my colleague from Georgia yield?
Mr. COVERDELL. The distinguished chairman was gracious enough to
yield me time. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Georgia
if it is acceptable to the chairman.
Mr. SHELBY. Certainly, it is my pleasure to yield to the junior
Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman. I wholeheartedly agree with my
colleague from Georgia. Hartsfield is operating beyond its capacity
during peak departure and arrival times. This
[[Page S8254]]
produces excessive delays, inconveniences passengers, disrupts flight
schedules, and increases operational cost for Hartsfield's carriers.
Commuter, typically turboprop, and other prop aircraft operations
compose approximately 18 percent of the airport's activity. These
aircraft weigh much less than air carrier jets. During final approach,
additional intrail separation must be used when a turboprop is behind
an air carrier jet due to wake turbulence. This additional separation
imposes delay to aircraft behind the turboprop, delaying passengers and
increasing costs resulting from the downwind portion of flight. By
removing the vast majority of commuter aircraft from both the downwind
and final approach segments of flight, delay is reduced for both air
carrier and commuter aircraft. Thus, an additional runway to handle
turboprops and light commuter jets would provide many benefits to all
Hartsfield carriers.
I support priority consideration by the FAA and urge the FAA to issue
an LOI for Atlanta. Would the chairman and the ranking member agree
with me and the senior Senator from Georgia that this project should
receive priority consideration by the FAA?
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, on behalf of the subcommittee, I would agree that
the efficiency of Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport is
important to the Nation and vital to the Southeast. The FAA should
issue an LOI for construction of a commuter runway at Hartsfield.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I concur with my colleague and support the request.
This project is an important investment not only for Atlanta, but for
the national air transportation system.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the chairman's and ranking member's
support for this project, which is vital to the city of Atlanta and
Hartsfield International Airport. Would you be willing to include
language in the conference report to the fiscal year 1998
Transportation appropriations bill which indicates that this project
should receive priority consideration by the FAA?
Mr. SHELBY. Yes, I would be happy to work with both Senators from
Georgia and try to include such language in the conference report.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also would be willing to work with the chairman and
both Senators from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking
member, and my colleague from Georgia for their help in this matter. I
yield the floor.
Mr. CLELAND. I would also like to thank the chairman, the ranking
member, and my colleague from Georgia for their help. I yield the
floor.
Structure Research
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the subcommittee
chairman in a brief colloquy regarding a small, but important project
underway in Michigan. As he may know, the State of Michigan and the
Federal Highway Administration are working together in the use of
advanced carbon and glass composites as reinforcements for concrete to
replace steel in the manufacture of prestressed bridge beams and bridge
decks. The House Appropriations Committee report encourages FHWA,
through its structures research program, to assist the State in
designing and deploying monitoring protocols and systems. I would hope
that the Senator from Alabama would be able to support that language in
conference.
Mr. SHELBY. I am aware of the structure research that the Senator
from Michigan has described and will work with him to ensure that his
interests are recognized during conference committee consideration of
this matter.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman for his assistance.
Mr. BROWNBACK. First of all, I would like to thank the Senator from
Alabama for his hard work on this bill and to commend him for his
diligence in furthering this important legislation.
I would like to talk about a provision that is a part of the House
counterpart to this bill and which addresses issues related to the
impact in Wichita, KS, of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
merger. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the report language
included in the House bill be inserted for the Record.
Mr. President, the impact of this merger is of great importance to
the community of Wichita, KS. Since the railroad runs through the
center of the city, the increased train traffic resulting from the
merger may affect significantly the flow of traffic through the city.
Various alternatives to mitigate this impact are currently being
considered, including the building of grade separations through the
city or the building of a bypass around the city. The Surface
Transportation Board is currently evaluating the feasibility of each of
the alternatives, and is expected to release its recommendations for
easing the impact of the additional trains in early September. The
language that I am requesting to be included in the Record would simply
state that the STB should revisit its recommendations if any
substantial changes are made in the assumptions used to complete this
study. This would include assumptions in the number of trains that are
expected to pass through the city or the speed at which the trains
travel. I would also like to point out that not only will this
provisions not have any current budgetary impact, it will help to
ensure that the Federal Government will not finance costly bailout in
the future because of faulty planning.
I would like to get assurances from the Senator from Alabama that he
will pay close attention to the concerns of the community of Wichita
during the Conference Committee consideration of this issue.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his interest in this
issue. I understand that the impact of the Union Pacific-Southern
Pacific merger will continue to be a concern to the community of
Wichita. I assure the Senator from Kansas that I will work with him
during the House-Senate Conference Committee consideration of this
issue.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has now completed action on 9
of the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the Government and we
are now nearing the close of debate on the Transportation
appropriations bill. We have completed action on those bills in record
time, for which I congratulate the managers of those measures.
These bills contain many good provisions and generally provide
appropriate levels of funding to continue the necessary functions of
the Federal Government.
But, Mr. President, by my reckoning, in the process of acting on
these 10 measures, the Senate will have wasted almost $10 billion on
wasteful, unnecessary, low priority, pork-barrel projects. This is an
appalling waste of taxpayers dollars--almost a billion dollars for
every appropriations bill we have considered so far, and we still have
three more appropriations bills to go.
This bill is typical of the types of earmarks and set-asides that
members add to the multi-billion-dollars bills.
This bill and report earmark billions of dollars for specific
highways, railroads, bridges, boats, hangers, and even a covered
bridge. Yes, a covered bridge. The report earmarks $2 million of
Federal highway funds to restore a covered bridge in Vermont.
The report directs the Coast Guard to buy twice as many coastal
patrol boats from the Bollinger Machine Shop and Shipyard in Louisiana
as were requested by the Coast Guard--at a cost of $68.1 million for 15
boats.
Another $4 million is earmarked to renovate a hanger at the Kodiak,
AK Coast Guard facility, a project which was not included in the budget
request.
The bill earmarks $26 million to repair three bridges in Hawaii,
Louisiana, and Georgia.
But these are ordinary earmarks of relatively small amounts of money.
Let me take a moment to highlight some of the larger set-asides in this
bill.
All of the $76.65 million provided for testing of intelligent
transportation systems, none of which was requested, is earmarked; 24
projects in 18 States are listed in the report to receive a share of
this $76 million.
A total of $300 million is earmarked for Appalachian development
highway systems--$100 million more than requested by the
administration.
All but $2 million of the $440 million for bus and bus facility
discretionary grants is earmarked for specific projects in specific
States; 35 States
[[Page S8255]]
will receive these grants, with Alabama, Missouri, New York, and West
Virginia getting more than $25 million each.
All but $5.8 million of the $780 million for new mass transit
facilities is earmarked; 26 of the 40 projects for which funds are
specifically set-aside were not even requested by the administration.
Of these unrequested projects, Washington State will receive $24
million for a commuter light-rail system; Orlando, FL, will receive
another $31.8 million for its light-rail system, in addition to the $2
million provided last year; and New York City will get $50 million for
an East Side access project.
Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the $23.45 million earmarked
in this bill for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project in New
York City will complete the Federal funding share of this project. I
would certainly hope that $100 million would be enough to ask the
Federal taxpayers to contribute to this $300-plus million project. I
strongly suspect, however, that there will be unexpected costs and
final details to be completed, and we will see another several million
earmarked for this project in next year's bill.
Finally, the report contains language earmarking just $450,000 for a
``transportation emergency preparedness and response demonstration
project on the threat of tornadoes in the Southern and Midwestern
States.'' The report also establishes a requirement that $400,000 of
this money is to be used to assist in the ``construction and
establishment of an underground emergency transportation management
center utilizing satellite communications.''
This sounds to me like a good idea in general, but I am concerned
about two things. First, how can this center be established for just
$450,000? And second, why did the Committee find it necessary to add a
specification that the center ``shall be located in a region that is
susceptible to tornadoes and at an elevation of over 1,300 feet above
sea level * * * and be within reasonably close proximity to military,
space and/or nuclear facilities to provide rapid response time (but far
enough away to be safe from disaster impacts).'' I wonder why the
Committee felt it was necessary to be so specific about the location
for the center. Why not just put in motion the process to establish a
tornado emergency preparedness center, and allow it to be built at the
best site to carry out its mission?
These are only a few of the earmarks and special projects contained
in this measure, but I will not waste the time of the Senate going over
each and every earmark.
Mr. President, it is difficult for me to see the logic of wasting
$9.9 billion in these 10 appropriations bills, and then hastening to
pass a Balanced Budget reconciliation bill to reduce Federal spending.
If we could just avoid pork-barrel spending in the first place, we
would not have to go through the painful process of eliminating it in
later years.
I hope my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will not bring
appropriations bills back from conference with all of the earmarks and
add-ons of both Houses, or we may well find ourselves negating any
progress we have made in the reconciliation process toward a balanced
Federal budget.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions in
this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Objectionable Provisions in Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation
Appropriations Bill
U.S. Coast Guard
Report earmarks $146,500 for the Marine Fire and Safety
Association, a private association (Columbia River area in OR
& WA).
Report provides $30.8 million more for acquisition of 7
more coastal patrol boats than requested, which are built by
Bollinger Machine Shop & Shipyard in Louisiana.
Report earmarks $4 million to renovate a hanger at the
Coast Guard Kodiak, Alaska facility, which was not included
in the budget request.
Bill and report provide $26 million to repair 3 bridges
under the Truman-Hobbs Act: $5.0 million for the Sand Island
Road Tunnel in Honolulu, HI; $3.0 million for the Florida
Avenue Bridge in New Orleans, LA; and $18.0 million for the
Sidney Lanier Bridge in Brunswick, GA. These projects should
be funded from the FHWA discretionary bridge program, not the
Coast Guard.
Federal Aviation Administration
Directs the FAA Administrator to meet the authorized
staffing levels for all air traffic control facilities in the
New York/New Jersey region by the dates identified in the
pending agreements with the pertinent employee organizations.
Directs the Administrator to inform the Appropriations
Committee immediately if it appears that those deadlines will
not be met.
Directs the FAA to study air traffic at the airports in New
Bern (NC), Hickory (NC) and Salisbury (MD). If those airports
meet or are projected to meet FAA's benefit/cost criteria for
contract tower operations within the next two years, or if
tower operations could be justified under a cost-sharing
arrangement, directs the FAA to open contract towers at those
airports for service during FY98.
Earmarks $400,000 to provide a low-earth orbit (LEO)
satellite communication system at Anchorage (AK), to augment
present communications systems.
Earmarks $970,000 to demonstrate infrared heating for
aircraft deicing at the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport
(WI).
Earmarks $1,700,000 to establish new remote communication
outlets in five Alaska sites.
Earmarks $2 million for the Alaska Volcano Observatory for
equipment and data transmission facilities on suspect
volcanoes across the Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian
Islands.
Earmarks $5 million for a new control tower at North Las
Vegas (NV) and $3 million for a new control tower at Martin
State Airport (MD).
Earmarks $875,000 to improve the Rutland (VT) State airport
instrument approach by reducing the ceiling and visibility
minima.
Earmarks $80,000 to install a standard omnidirectional
approach lighting system (ODALS) under the approach to Runway
9 at Cordova Airport (AK).
Earmarks $10 million to procure 10 new tactical landing
systems (TLS). Intends for the systems to be installed and
tested at regional airports that exhibit requirements for
improved economic development and safety of operation
including, but not limited to, the Pullman-Moscow Regional
Airport (WA), the Friedman Memorial Airport (ID), and at
rural airports in Brigham City (UT), Logan (UT), Wendover
(UT), and Tooele (UT).
Earmarks $5 million for the precision approach path
indicator (PAPI) navigational aid systems, with 10 directed
to be installed at remote Alaskan airport locations.
Earmarks $3.5 million for two wind profilers currently
leased at the Juneau (AK) airport along with new computers
and navigational aids, and to install anemometers, and for
the costs to calibrate the new equipment.
Earmarks $4 million to accelerate replacement of existing,
nonsupportable engine generators and to replace FAA's
electrical distribution system at Cold Bay (AK) with an
underground electrical distribution system.
Earmarks $18.9 million for FAA aircraft fleet
modernization, and directs the FAA to exercise the option
presently in place for the acquisition of one new modified
Learjet 60 flight inspection and airways calibration aircraft
under the contract presently in force between the FAA and E-
Systems.
Earmarks $750,000 for additional training equipment for the
Rocky Mountain Services Training Center (RMESTC).
Earmarks $1.25 million for the continued development of an
alternative explosives detection technology that uses a
neutron probe, which determines the number and ratio of
atoms of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in small
volumes throughout a suitcase and uses that information to
identify contraband substances such as explosives and
drugs.
Priority consideration for AIP discretionary grants for 35
specified airports (report p. 73), and priority consideration
for new Letters of Intent (LOI) that establish multi-year
obligations of AIP funds for 5 specified airports (report p.
80).
federal highway administration
Report earmarks $1.2 million for research into high
performance materials and bridge systems and ``strongly
recommends'' that FHWA conduct the research during the
Interstate 15 reconstruction project and other transportation
projects in the Salt Lake Valley, Utah.
Report directs FHWA to work with an unnamed academic and
industry-led national consortium and fund with available
money an advanced composite bridge project to demonstrate the
applications of an all-composite bridge for civil
infrastructure purposes.
Report earmarks $100,000 for FHWA's participation in an
assessment of methodologies needed for estimating emissions
of particulate matter, the sources and composition of
particulate matter from roadway construction and heavy truck
activity in the San Joaquin Valley of California.
Report directs DOT to continue a cooperative agreement with
the National Center for Physical Acoustics to identify
scientific issues which impede accurate noise prediction.
(Last year the Committee earmarked $250,000 for the Center
for this purpose.)
Report earmarks $2 million for an assessment of the Red
River corridor transportation infrastructure of the five-
State area.
Earmarks all of the $76.65 million appropriated for
Intelligent Transportation Systems operational tests, none of
which was requested, as follows:
[[Page S8256]]
$2.3 million for Southeast Michigan snow and ice management
$7 million for Intelligent transportation systems in Utah
$2 million for intermodal common communications technology
in Kansas City, Missouri
$3.75 million for intelligent transportation systems in
Reno, Nevada
$500,000 for intelligent transportation systems in Yosemite
Valley, California
$1.5 million for the Western Transportation Institute in
Bozeman, Montana
$10 million for traffic management in Barboursville-ONA,
West Virginia
$600,000 for the advanced traffic analysis center at North
Dakota State University
$800,000 for advanced transportation weather information
systems in North Dakota
$1 million for an emergency weather system in Sullivan
County, New York
$250,000 for the Urban Transportation Safety Systems Center
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
$2.1 million for toll plaza scanners in New York City
$2 million for a computer integrated transit maintenance
environment project in Cleveland, Ohio
$1.4 million for the intermodal technology demonstration
project in Santa Teresa, New Mexico
$3 million for hazardous materials emergency response
software for Operation Respond
$750,000 for radio communication emergency call boxes in
Washington State
$2.5 million for statewide roadway weather information
systems in Washington
$400,000 for Texas Department of Transportation Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) research
$9.2 million for Milwaukee, MONITOR, and Wisconsin rural
ITS
$2.1 for the I-95 multistate corridor coalition
$12 million for truck safety improvements on I-25 in
Colorado
$2.2 million for traffic integration and flow control in
Tuscalousa, Alabama
$8 million for Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission ITS
$1.3 million for Alaska cold weather ITS sensing
Report directs FHWA to fund a study on the impact of
establishing a road link from Wrangell, Alaska, to the
Canadian border along a proposed Bradfield Road alignment.
Bill provides $300 million ($200 million was requested) for
Appalachian development highway systems.
Report directs FHWA to give priority to funding for
specific projects, including 5 bridge projects, 4 interstate
rehabilitation projects, 3 federal lands highway projects,
and 5 ferry projects.
Report earmarks $2 million for a covered bridge restoration
program in Vermont.
Report earmarks $6.4 million of the $18 million provided
for ferryboats and ferryboat facilities program for the
Hollis-Craig-Ketchikan Ferry.
Reports directs FHWA to give priority consideration to the
safety improvement program on Highway 101 around the Olympic
Penisula in Washington State.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Report earmarks $300,000 for emergency medical personnel
guidelines for treating severe head injuries and NHTSA is
encouraged to work with the Aitken Neuroscience Institute on
the guidelines.
Federal Railroad Administration
Report earmarks $4 million for the first of four
installments for a positive train control demonstration
project on the Alaska Railroad.
Report earmarks $23.45 million to complete the Federal
funding share for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment
project in New York City.
Report earmarks $5 million for New York State to use to
leverage private financing of high-speed trainsets between
New York City and Buffalo.
Report earmarks $4 million for improving grade crossings in
the 92-mile Charlotte to Greensboro, North Carolina high-
speed railcorridor.
Report earmarks $500,000 to a State department of
transportation (unnamed) to establish a consortium of States
and other participants to advance high-speed rail.
Bill provides $17 million for the Alaskan Railroad, which
was not requested.
Federal Transit Administration
Report earmarks $1 million for continued development of
low-speed magnetic levitation technology for a downtown urban
area shuttle in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Report expresses support for Federal funding for a 2-year
effort by the city and county of Honolulu to undertake an
analysis to develop mobility alternatives for Honolulu's
primary urban corrider from Ewa to east Honolulu.
Of the $440 million provided for bus and bus facility
discretionary grants, all but approximately $2 million is
earmarked for the following projects. Projects indicated by
** received FY 97 funds in the amount contains in brackets.
Alabama ($39 million): Birmingham/Jefferson County buses,
$12 million; Huntsville Intermodal Center, phase I, $10
million; Mobile Southern Market historic intermodal center,
$1 million; Mobile Municipal Pier intermodal waterfront
access rehabilitation project, $2 million; Mobile bus
replacement, $3 million; Birmingham downtown intermodal
transportation facility, phase 2, $6 million; Montgomery bus
replacement, $3 million; Tuscaloosa bus replacement, $2
million
California ($17.7 million): Riverside County transit
vehicle ITS communications, $1 million; Rialto MetroLink
depot, $2.2 million; Modesto bus maintenance facility, $3.5
million; Foothills bus maintenance facility $9 [$4.75
million], and ATTB bus project, $2 million. [$3.173 million]
Colorado: ($11 million): Colorado Association of Transit
Agencies, buses and equipment
Connecticut ($7.5 million): Bridgeport intermodal center
[$1 million]
District of Columbia ($4 million): Fuel cell bus facilities
Florida ($14 million): Lakeland transit buses $1 million;
Volusia County buses $2 million [$1.5 million]; Palm Beach
buses $2 million; Metro Dade Transit buses and facilities $5
million; LYNSX Central Florida Regional Transportation
Authority buses and bus facilities $4 million [$4 million].
Georgia ($5 million): Atlanta MARTA compressed natural gas
buses [$2 million]
Hawaii ($10 million): Honolulu buses and facilities
Indiana ($4 million): Indianapolis Public Transportation
buses [$1 million]
Iowa ($8 million): Statewide bus and bus facility projects,
$5.5 million [$3.72 million] and Sioux City park and ride
facility, $2.5 million.
Kansas ($2 million): Johnson Co. Bus maintenance/operations
facility [$2.2 million]
Louisiana ($8 million): Statewide bus and bus facility
projects, $5 million [$16.5 million]; New Orleans TRA central
maintenance facility, $3 million
Maryland ($10 million): Mass Transit Administration buses
and facilities [$5 million]
Massachusetts ($4 million): Springfield intermodal center,
$1 million; Worcester Union Station intermodal center $3
million [$3 million]
Minnesota ($3 million): St. Paul, Snelling bus garage
Mississippi ($4 million): Jackson bus facility [$3 million]
Missouri ($32 million): Kansas City buses and fare bus
collection system, $7 million [$2.65 million]; Kansas City
Union Station intermodal center, $9 million [$6.5 million];
OATS rural bus programs, $16 million
Nevada ($8 million): Las Vegas transit system vehicles
[$3.3 million]
New Jersey ($12 million): NJ transit alternative fuel buses
New Mexico ($11.8 million): Sante Fe buses and facilities,
$1 million; Demonstration of universal electric
transportation subsystems [DUETS], $1.3 million; statewide
bus and bus facilities, $7.5 million; Las Cruces and
Albuquerque park and ride, $1 million [$1 million];
Albuquerque uptown transit center, $1 million [$1 million]
New York ($47.05 million): Poughkeepsie intermodal
facility, $4 million; Suffolk County buses, $4.3 million;
Rensselaer County Intermodal facility, $3.750 million;
Westchester County buses, $10 million; Nassau Co. Natural gas
buses, $10 million, New York City natural gas buses, $15
million [$10 million]
North Carolina ($8.6 million): Chapel Hill University
buses, $1.6 million; statewide bus and bus facilities, $7
million [$27.5 million]
Ohio ($12.5 million): Statewide bus and bus facilities [$27
million]
Oregon ($2 million): Salem and Corvallis bus and bus
facilities, $2 million; Lane Transit District bus system in
Eugene, $1 million. [$2.55 million]
Pennsylvania ($15 million): Philadelphia Eastwick
intermodal center ($2 million) [$1 million]; SEPTA small
buses, $2 million; Wilkes-Barre intermodal facility, $3
million; statewide bus and bus facility projects, $8 million
South Carolina ($11 million): Columbia buses and
facilities, $3 million; Pee Dee Regional Planning Authority
buses and facility, $7 million; Virtual Transit Enterprise,
integration of transit information processing systems, $1
million
South Dakota ($4.5 million): Sioux Falls maintenance
facility
Tennessee ($15 million): Statewide bus and bus facilities
projects, [$2.5 million]
Texas ($23.9 million): Galveston Transit alternatively
fueled buses, $3 million; Corpus Christi Transit Authority
facilities and dispatching system, $3.9 million [$1 million];
Brazos Transit Authority transit facilities and buses, $4
million [$1.35 million]; Austin Capital Metro buses, $6
million, rural Texas bus replacement program, $5 million, and
Fort Worth buses, $2 million.
Utah ($13.4 million): Utah Transit Authority Olympic park
and ride lots, $4 million; Park City transit buses, $.4
million; Salt Lake City Utah transit authority bus
acquisition, $4 million [$5.6 million]; Salt Lake City, Utah
Transit Authority Olympic intermodal transportation centers,
$5 million [$5.5 million]
Vermont ($4.750 million): Burlington multimodal facility,
$3 million [$1.5 million]; statewide bus and bus facilities
projects, $1.750 million [$4 million]
Virginia ($2 million): Richmond multimodal center [$10
million]
Washington ($22 million): Chelan-Douglas multimodal center,
$2 million; Community Transit, Kasch Park facility, $3
million; Olympic Penisula International Gateway
Transportation Center, $1 million; Whatcom Transportation
Authority facilities, $3 million, King County metro commuter
intermodal connector, $3 million [$4 million]; King County
park and ride lots, $10 million
[[Page S8257]]
West Virginia ($28 million): Huntington intermodal facility
and buses, $9.5 million; statewide buses and bus facilities,
communications and computer systems, $18.5 million
Wisconsin ($15 million): Milwaukee rail station
rehabilitation, $2 million; Wisconsin transit system buses,
$13 million [$11.9 million]
Of $780,000,000 provided for New Mass Transit Facilities
Discretionary Assistance and all but $5.8 million is
earmarked in the bill. The Administration requested
$634,000,000, all of which was earmarked to fund the federal
share of the 14 projects with regional transit operator
systems having Full Funding Grant Agreements with the
Federal Transit Administration. The 14 projects are in, or
ready to begin, construction. The Committee increased the
administration requests for four projects, providing:
$30 million for Denver's project instead of $21.3 million
$35 million for MARC commuter instead of $26.9 million
$64 million for Hudson-Bergen, NJ instead of $54.7 million,
and
$84 million for Salt Lake City's South light rail transit
project instead of the $42.7 requested.
The Committee earmarked funds for 26 projects for which NO
funds were requested, as follows. Projects marked with **
received FY 97 funding in the amount shown in parentheses.
$1 million for Austin Capital Metro
$2 million for Boston urban ring
** $8 million for Burlington-Essex, Vermont commuter rail
($1 million)
$800,000 for Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail
$3 million for Charleston, SC monobeam rail project
$500,000 for Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail
line project
$5 million Clark County Nevada rapid transit commuter fixed
guideway
** $14 million for DART north central light rail extension
($11 million)
$50 million for the East Side access project in New York
** $12 million for Florida tricounty commuter rail ($9
million)
$4 million for the Galveston rail trolley system
$2 million for the Griffin light rail project in Hartford,
CT
$1.5 million for the Indianapolis northeast corridor
** $3 million for the Jackson, Mississippi intermodal
corridor ($5.5 million)
** $1 million for the Memphis regional rail plan ($3.03
million)
$500,000 for the Nassau hub rail link environmental impact
statement
** $4 million for the New Orleans Desire streetcar line
reconstruction ($2 million)
** $14 million for North Carolina Research Triangle Park
($2 million)
** $6 million for Northern Indiana South Shore commuter
rail ($500,000)
** $2 million for Oklahoma city MAPS corridor transit
system ($2 million)
** $31.8 million for Orlando Lynx light rail project ($2
million)
** $8 million for the Pittsburgh busway projects ($10
million)
$2 million for Roaring Fork Aspen Valley rail
$8 million for Salt Lake City regional commuter systems
$24 million for Seattle-Tacoma light rail and commuter
rail, and
$500,000 for Springfield-Branson, MO commuter rail
Research and Special Programs Administration
$450,000 is earmarked for a ``transportation emergency
preparedness and response demonstration projects on the
threat of tornadoes in the Southern and Midwestern States. Of
the total, $400,000 is to be used to assist in ``the
construction and establishment of an underground emergency
transportation management center utilizing satellite
communications.'' According to the report, the center ``shall
be located in a region that is susceptible to tornadoes and
at an elevation of over 1,300 feet above sea level . . . and
be within reasonably close proximity to military, space and/
or nuclear facilities to provide rapid response time.''
The bill contains a general provision prohibiting any funds
in the bill from being expended unless Buy American Act
provisions are complied with.
terminal automated radar display and information system at paine field
in washington state
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for the excellent job he
has done on this bill, and in particular for the priority he has given
to airports. The chairman has been very accommodating in looking out
for the interests of Washington State. There is one program, however,
that we did not address in this bill, and I would like to seek the
chairman's assistance in seeing that the issue can be raised in
conference. Paine Field in Everett, WA, is currently the third busiest
airport in the State. In addition to being the airport from which
Boeing tests its 747, 767, and 777 aircraft, I understand that a
commercial airline has indicated its interest in operating from Paine
Field. Despite the growing traffic, Paine Field does not have a radar
system, and air traffic controllers currently use binoculars and
reports from pilots to determine the positions of aircraft relative to
each other.
I understand that while most radar air traffic control systems can be
quite expensive, there is a new system that is far less costly and
could be appropriate for testing at airports like Paine Field. This
technology, called the terminal automated radar display and information
system, or TARDIS, essentially reproduces in the air traffic control
tower, radar images generated elsewhere. In the case of Paine Field,
the data may be obtained from nearby Fort Lawton.
While it remains to be seen whether this TARDIS system is, in fact,
appropriate for Paine Field, I would appreciate the chairman's
assistance in revisiting this issue in conference with an eye to
including report language urging the FAA to give full consideration to
installing a TARDIS system at Paine Field.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the senior Senator from Washington for his kind
words, and assure him that I look forward to working with him during
conference on the issue of TARDIS at Paine Field, and other issues of
interest to Washington State.
appalachian development highway
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to raise
a matter that is of great concern to me and that is the inequitable
repayment policy of the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHD]
Program. States like Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, and New
York, which have prefinanced Appalachian road projects, are reimbursed
at a 70-percent Federal match, while States expending funds for new
mileage receive an 80-percent match.
Unfortunately, this error will cost Kentucky at least $7 million if
it isn't corrected. Kentucky is one of five States to prefinance
Appalachian development highway projects. According to the Appalachian
Regional Commission, this error will cost those States up to $30
million.
It is my understanding that this inequity is due to clerical error
that occurred during consideration of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978. Language amending subsection (f) regarding
regular highway funding was included, but subsection (h) on
prefinancing was inadvertently left out. Both the Carter and Reagan
administrations attempted to fix this inequity, but not of the efforts
have succeeded.
I have requested the assistance of both the bill managers in
correcting the problem. I have also sought the advice of Senator John
Warner, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, which has
the responsibility of authorizing this program. I appreciate their
willingness to assist me in finding a solution to this problem.
Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Shelby his views on this matter.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the committee is aware that States have
prefinanced construction projects authorized under the Appalachian
highway program are reimbursed at 70 percent Federal share, while those
States expending funds for the new mileage receive an 80-percent
Federal share. The committee recognizes that this provision treats
those States that have taken the initiative to prefinance these needed
road projects differently and urges the appropriate authorizing
committee to consider correcting this funding inequity over the period
during which funds are made available to complete the ADHS.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Warner if
he agrees with my assessment of the problem and would help me correct
this error in the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill,
which is set to expire on September 30.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for his leadership in raising this matter. I
agree that this inequitable reimbursement rate for States who
prefinance construction projects should be addressed. As the chairman
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, I will bring this matter to the
attention of my committee colleagues and work to correct this problem
in the
[[Page S8258]]
surface transportation reauthorization bill.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to expound upon a provision in the
Transportation appropriations bill to forgive the State of Hawaii from
its obligation to repay $30 million owed to the Airport Revenue Fund
for ceded land payments to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs [OHA].
Current law states that airport revenues can only be used for airport
purposes. The U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general
found in September of 1996, that the approximately $30 million in ceded
land payments made from the Hawaii Airport Revenue Fund were not in
compliance with the law. In April of this year, the U.S. Department of
Transportation affirmed the decision, and is seeking the repayment of
those moneys.
A continuation of the status quo--continued ceded land payments from
the Airport Revenue Fund--was not possible. It was counter to the U.S.
Department of Transportation's position and policy. I did not have the
support of my colleagues to legislate its continuation. At this time,
forgiveness of the $30 million debt was possible and achievable. I
thank my colleagues for allowing for the congressional forgiveness of
an airport revenue diversion in order to aid the State of Hawaii and
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
However, I would like to make clear that as a result of the U.S.
Department of Transportation ruling and the pending legislation, the
removal of the Airport Revenue Fund for use by the State of Hawaii as a
source of compensating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for use of ceded
lands upon which the airports sit, should not equate to a like
reduction in the State's obligation to OHA under State law. This
forgiveness provision should not be construed as a forgiveness of the
State's obligation to OHA.
The airports continue to sit on ceded lands. The State's obligation
to compensate OHA for the use of the land upon which the airports sit
should also continue. The only difference would now be the source the
State will draw upon to satisfy its obligation. I have viewed my role
as aiding in alleviating the accumulated debt to reduce the pressure,
and thereby allow the State and OHA to return to the negotiating table
to work toward a mutually acceptable course of action that accepts as a
premise, the existence of an obligation.
To ensure that my intent is clear in this regard, I have requested
the inclusion of the following provision in section 335:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any
existing statutes of the several states that define the
obligations of such states to Native Hawaiians, Native
Americans or Alaskan Natives in connection with ceded lands,
except to make clear that airport revenues may not be used to
satisfy any such obligations.
Mr. President, in light of the unique history of Hawaii's ceded lands
and the obligations that flow from these lands for the betterment of
the native Hawaiian people, I believe that this is more than a fiscal
matter, this is a fiduciary matter--one of trust and obligation.
Section 335 ensures that the State of Hawaii and OHA would not be
required to return funds already in their possession. It is my
expectation that this will calm the waters and clear the way for
reasoned negotiations as the State, in good faith, looks to satisfy its
obligations from other sources.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to S. 1048
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the House companion
bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All after the enacting clause is stricken and
the text of S. 1048, as amended, is inserted.
Under the previous order, the question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill was read the
third time.
Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on passage of
H.R. 2169 immediately following the vote with respect to S. 39, the
tuna-dolphin bill, which will occur tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, rule XII is waived as well.
____________________