[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.

                          ____________________