[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10751-S10758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1998--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the
Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2169) having met, after full and free conference, have agreed
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this
report, signed by all of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 7, 1997.)
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
conference report be considered read, and that there be 20 minutes
equally divided; that, following the conclusion or yielding back of the
time, the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
[[Page S10752]]
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference
report on the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and related
agencies appropriations bill. This bill is very similar to the
transportation appropriations bill that the Senate approved 98 to 1 on
July 30. It provides the highest level of funding for Federal-aid
highways in history--$22.9 billion. That's slightly less than the
amount we had included in the Senate bill because, in conference, we
agreed to fund some other House priorities, but it's still a record
level.
The actual distribution of those funds among the States will depend
on reauthorization of ISTEA--the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991--which has provided authorization for Federal
surface transportation programs for the past 6 years and which expired
at the end of fiscal year 1997. But this increase of almost $3 billion
over fiscal year 1997 will almost certainly mean more Federal highway
spending for each State.
The conference report also includes $300 million for the Appalachian
Development Highway System as proposed by the Senate. This is a
downpayment toward meeting the Federal Government's commitment to
completing that System.
The bill includes $4.7 billion for transit grants, including $200
million for Washington Metro. I ask unanimous consent that a table
which shows the distribution of these funds under current law be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1998 DISTRIBUTION OF APPROPRIATED TRANSIT FORMULA AND DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM FUNDS BY STATE--ILLUSTRATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310,
Section 5307, Section 5311, elderly and Section 5309, Section 5338, Section 5338,
State urban area nonurbanized persons with fixed guideway discretionary discretionary Total Percent of
formula area formula disabilities modernization grants--bus and grants--new total
apportionment apportionment apportionments apportionment bus facilities starts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................... $11,185,758 $3,186,673 $1,077,887 0 $25,600,000 0 $41,050,318 0.92
Alaska................................................ 1,804,936 475,202 181,007 0 0 0 2,461,144 .05
American Samoa........................................ 0 67,731 52,205 0 0 0 119,936 0
Arizona............................................... 25,641,598 1,395,042 951,941 $753,784 5,500,000 $4,000,000 38,242,365 0.85
Arkansas.............................................. 3,979,267 2,547,613 757,178 0 0 0 7,284,057 0.16
California............................................ 359,319,983 6,217,892 5,780,115 73,004,558 38,400,000 141,600,000 624,322,548 13.93
Colorado.............................................. 26,861,907 1,327,272 741,382 872,588 5,500,000 25,000,000 60,303,148 1.35
Connecticut........................................... 36,082,253 1,203,960 847,581 33,127,313 6,950,000 0 78,211,107 1.74
Delaware.............................................. 4,544,322 300,359 266,380 371,459 1,500,000 0 6,982,520 .16
District of Columbia.................................. 21,487,762 0 264,504 20,304,678 0 0 42,056,943 .94
Florida............................................... 110,965,452 3,997,135 3,904,781 6,261,059 20,000,000 50,800,000 195,928,427 4.37
Georgia............................................... 40,275,089 4,659,255 1,393,706 8,377,647 9,000,000 45,600,000 109,305,697 2.44
Guam.................................................. 0 192,815 132,335 0 0 0 325,149 .01
Hawaii................................................ 19,104,500 522,930 335,201 302,560 5,000,000 0 25,265,191 .56
Idaho................................................. 2,361,119 1,054,997 342,719 0 0 0 3,758,834 .08
Illinois.............................................. 162,182,847 4,274,606 2,528,911 108,300,140 4,500,000 3,000,000 284,786,504 6.35
Indiana............................................... 25,432,292 4,129,173 1,333,234 0 4,000,000 5,250,000 40,144,699 .90
Iowa.................................................. 6,711,334 2,655,925 812,986 0 4,000,000 0 14,180,245 .32
Kansas................................................ 6,233,630 2,112,704 683,737 0 1,000,000 0 10,030,071 .22
Kentucky.............................................. 12,693,258 3,487,613 1,033,565 0 0 0 17,214,437 .38
Louisiana............................................. 21,173,354 2,884,508 1,036,865 2,192,506 13,900,000 8,000,000 49,187,234 1.10
Maine................................................. 1,693,773 1,391,888 425,143 0 0 0 3,510,805 .08
Maryland.............................................. 59,427,457 1,737,705 1,041,705 16,644,799 8,000,000 31,000,000 117,851,667 2.63
Masaschusetts......................................... 87,078,919 1,862,292 1,494,500 54,823,484 6,200,000 47,250,000 198,709,196 4.43
Michigan.............................................. 47,254,939 5,043,404 2,165,608 152,149 7,500,000 0 62,116,100 1.39
Minnesota............................................. 22,554,929 2,902,188 1,056,203 2,156,921 10,500,000 12,000,000 51,170,241 1.14
Mississippi........................................... 3,639,708 2,832,159 735,995 0 2,000,000 3,000,000 12,207,861 .27
Missouri.............................................. 26,095,820 3,380,302 1,351,855 1,484,601 16,000,000 30,500,000 78,812,577 1.76
Montana............................................... 1,786,660 854,630 315,546 0 0 0 2,956,836 .07
Nebraska.............................................. 6,471,591 1,289,529 486,039 0 0 0 8,247,158 .18
Nevada................................................ 11,496,750 421,012 365,038 0 9,500,000 5,000,000 26,782,800 .60
New Hampshire......................................... 2,503,259 1,114,728 345,598 0 0 0 3,963,585 .09
New Jersey............................................ 136,678,638 1,593,825 1,791,542 69,082,137 6,000,000 87,000,000 302,146,143 6.74
New Mexcico........................................... 5,357,480 1,252,988 429,081 0 7,750,000 0 14,789,549 .33
New York.............................................. 410,451,112 5,610,456 4,133,626 276,062,566 34,325,000 25,500,000 756,082,760 16.87
North Carolina........................................ 20,069,428 5,959,962 1,583,185 0 6,000,000 13,000,000 46,612,575 1.04
North Dakota.......................................... 1,741,653 632,037 270,610 0 0 0 2,644,300 .06
Northern Marianas..................................... 0 62,767 52,014 0 0 0 114,781 0
Ohio.................................................. 65,501,156 6,067,655 2,638,627 12,722,165 12,500,000 6,000,000 105,429,604 2.35
Oklahoma.............................................. 8,527,934 2,593,860 893,771 0 0 1,600,000 13,615,566 .30
Oregon................................................ 19,592,547 2,059,548 831,880 1,292,018 3,000,000 63,400,000 90,175,992 2.01
Pennsylvania.......................................... 112,985,990 6,768,533 3,160,912 92,157,105 27,350,000 5,500,000 247,922,540 5.53
Puerto Rico........................................... 36,532,549 2,022,651 789,842 775,726 0 15,000,000 55,120,768 1.23
Rhode Island.......................................... 7,598,014 259,105 379,890 1,062,810 0 0 9,299,820 .21
South Carolina........................................ 9,080,065 2,982,991 864,379 0 6,000,000 1,500,000 20,427,434 .46
South Dakota.......................................... 1,256,376 770,404 291,151 0 2,250,000 0 4,567,931 .10
Tennessee............................................. 16,849,421 3,850,700 1,270,291 32,983 8,000,000 1,000,000 31,003,395 .69
Texas................................................. 119,735,859 8,129,898 3,264,108 3,046,639 14,950,000 74,100,000 223,226,504 4.98
Utah.................................................. 15,889,161 584,009 400,773 0 8,900,000 67,400,000 93,173,843 2.08
Vermont............................................... 631,418 688,808 243,018 0 2,500,000 5,000,000 9,063,244 .20
Virgin Islands........................................ 0 147,427 134,313 0 0 0 281,740 .01
Virginia.............................................. 45,207,104 3,414,019 1,320,940 517,018 5,650,000 4,000,000 60,109,081 1.34
Washington............................................ 60,260,229 2,392,160 1,186,078 7,835,369 21,000,000 18,000,000 110,673,835 2.47
West Virginia......................................... 3,044,128 2,034,025 635,242 0 16,250,000 0 21,963,396 .49
Wisconsin............................................. 26,270,709 3,514,557 1,210,642 283,218 14,000,000 0 45,279,126 1.01
Wyoming............................................... 872,428 491,550 208,724 0 0 0 1,572,702 .04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Apportioned................................. 2,292,177,864 133,407,177 62,226,089 794,000,000 400,975,000 800,000,000 4,482,786,130 100.00
Agency Oversight...................................... 11,518,482 670,388 ................ 6,000,000 ................ ................ 18,188,870 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Program..................................... 2,303,696,346 134,077,565 62,226,089 800,000,000 400,000,000 800,000,000 4,500,000,000 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the bill also provides $1.7 billion for
airport improvement grants, which is $700 million more than the
administration requested. In total, this bill contains $30.1 billion
for investment in infrastructure that the public uses, that is,
highways, transit, airports, and railroads. That represents an 8-
percent increase over the administration's request.
This legislation will improve safety: It provides an 11-percent
increase in funds to improve highway safety and will permit FAA to hire
an additional 235 aviation safety inspectors and 500 air traffic
controllers.
Major changes in the bill as a result of conference deliberations
include the addition of $150 million in transit operating assistance
and reductions of less than 1 percent in the multi-billion dollar FAA
and Coast Guard operating accounts.
The Senate accommodated requests we received from Senators as fully
as we could. In conference, of course, we had to accommodate requests
from Members of both the Senate and House with no increase in funds
over the Senate bill to cover these requests. That was a very difficult
process. We tried to be fair and balanced in our treatment of Members'
requests.
I want to reiterate a point I made when I brought the Senate bill to
the floor in July. Many Senators wanted funds for highway projects of
special interest to them and their States. This year, ISTEA
reauthorization is providing a vehicle for special project funding,
especially in the House where
[[Page S10753]]
there is very active consideration of such funding. I assure my
colleagues that I believe that the Congress has at least as legitimate
a role in designating funding for specific highway projects as it does
in designating which transit projects will be funded. I intend to
review the situation after enactment of ISTEA reauthorization
legislation and to work with my Senate and House colleagues in the year
ahead to ensure that we have an opportunity to designate funding for
highway projects of special interest to our States and communities.
There are a great number of people to thank for getting this bill
completed. I want to single out a few for special thanks for all their
efforts.
First, the chairman, my good friend from Alaska. I know he wanted to
move this bill along promptly, but he was patient and allowed me to
work out the issues that were holding up conference and was always
willing to lend his compelling voice to support the Senate position in
our discussions with the House.
The majority leader as well played a critical role in the
negotiations with the House. I want to thank him for his leadership,
advice, and guidance, as well as for his personal involvement on this
bill.
I want to thank my distinguished ranking member on the subcommittee,
Senator Lautenberg, for his part in moving the process forward. We
don't always take the same position on transportation issues or funding
priorities, but he is always a strong advocate for meeting the
transportation priorities of the Northeast and presents a perspective
on this bill that comes from a great deal of hands-on experience with
transportation issues. In addition, this bill has provided an
opportunity for me to work closely with the distinguished ranking
member of the full committee, Senator Byrd. One of the common
priorities Senator Byrd and I share in the Transportation
appropriations bill is the completion of the Appalachian Development
Highway System. Through his leadership and support, we have been able
to provide substantial support for meeting that priority.
I also want to thank the other members of the subcommittee for their
efforts and the efforts of their staffs in support of the Senate's
position during the conference. This subcommittee works well together,
and I am blessed with the luxury of having subcommittee members who
take transportation issues very seriously and are quick to let me know
of their positions on issues. In particular, I want to commend the
senior Senator from Missouri, my good friend, Senator Kit Bond. Senator
Bond has been a major force in transportation funding issues this year
as he has the uncommon responsibilities of sitting on the Budget
Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and on the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. He was a primary
advocate for higher highway funding during the budget process; he is a
major force in the Senate consideration of reauthorization legislation,
and is one of the most thoughtful and effective members of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Bond can be a
dogged advocate for issues of interest to the Show Me State. He was in
a position to put passage of the Transportation appropriations bill in
jeopardy if his legitimate interest in a matter before the conference
was not met. In a display of the statesmanship that shows me why he is
such an effective Senator, he refused to hold the bill up--instead, he
sought a creative way of meeting both the interests of his State and
the needs of the Congress to move this legislation along. I pledge to
him here that I will work with him to ensure the satisfactory
resolution of this issue.
In addition, I want to thank a few staff members who worked hard to
put this bill together. The staff director of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, Steve Cortese played a critical role in resolving issues
between the House and the Senate so that we could have this conference
report before the Senate today. His counterpart on the House side, Jim
Dyer, as well, deserves note and a word of thanks for his efforts to
that end. Although they work in different bodies, these two
professionals work together well and are a credit to the appropriations
process and the Congress. Further, the subcommittee staff, Joyce Rose,
Reid Cavnar, Wally Burnett, and for a short time, George McDonald, as
well as my legislative director Kathy Casey and Chief of Staff Tom
Young, worked long and hard to put this bill together and I thank them.
In addition, Jim English, Peter Rogoff, Peter Neffenger, Carole
Geagley, and Mike Brennan have helped make this a truly bipartisan
bill, and I thank them.
I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish in this bill. It
will benefit all Americans as it helps improve transportation services
in this country so that the economy and personal mobility are better
served.
I now turn to my distinguished ranking member from New Jersey,
Senator Lautenberg, who has worked with me in a bipartisan spirit to
produce this bill.
Mr. President, I believe overall that this is a good transportation
appropriations bill. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But Senator
Lautenberg, my colleague from New Jersey, former chairman, now the
ranking member of the committee, worked diligently together with our
staffs to put this bill together. We had protracted discussions with
the House, and at the end of the day we are here with a completed
conference report, one which I believe that most people in this body
can support.
I want to take a minute and thank my staff director, Wally Burnett,
for all the work that he has put into this night and day. He knows the
subject. He has been very, very diligent and the bill reflects that
diligence.
I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for the work
and the knowledge that he has of these transportation issues. Knowledge
that he is beginning to share with me as time goes on. And, to his
staff director, Peter Rogoff, I thank you for cooperating with us on so
many of the issues. And, at the end of the day, at the end of the week,
and at the end of this conference we are here.
At this point, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, view this report as does my
friend and colleague and chairman of the subcommittee. It reflects what
I think is a good outcome after being forced to work with less
resources than I would like to see devoted to transportation. But that
is life in the present fiscal climate and consistent with our
determination to have a balanced budget by 2002. As a matter of fact,
the news is fairly good on that front. We may actually achieve that
balance before then. But, meanwhile, we are taking the appropriate
steps to our transportation bill to conform with the responsibility
that we have undertaken as a result of the budget agreement. We spent a
lot of time and energy trying to ensure that transportation would be
treated as the appropriate priority, as we see it. And it has some very
positive results.
The Coast Guard is going to get a 12.7 percent boost so that it can
continue to execute its many essential missions.
Funding for FAA will increase by almost 10 percent. Within that
amount, we have rejected the proposal by the administration to cut
airport improvement grants by more than 33 percent. Instead, we have
provided an increase for airport grants of more than 16 percent.
Funding for Federal-aid highways went to a historically high level of
$21.5 billion. This increased funding will be especially critical as we
address the many vexing challenges that currently surround the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act, or ISTEA, or ISTEA II, or whatever the name is that we are going
to give the next 6-year or 5-year program.
Funding for formula assistance for the Nation's transit systems will
increase by 16.3 percent. I want to point out that in my view this
includes a balanced approach in addressing the needs of all of our
States in all transportation modes.
When the bill was first marked up, I voiced concern that while we
were providing a much needed increase in funding for highways, the
needs of the transit agencies were not getting appropriate attention.
I am pleased to say that between the amendment I offered during full
committee consideration of the bill and the
[[Page S10754]]
final deliberations of the conference committee, the increase in
formula funding for transit was brought to a level comparable with the
increases in formula funding provided for other infrastructure
investment programs in the bill.
Moreover, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes my
amendment to provide greater flexibility to all transit agencies, large
and small, in the use of the Federal transit formula funds.
Mr. President, all in all, as I said, I think it is a good outcome.
The funding level for Amtrak is one that concerns me because Amtrak
plays such an important part in the transportation of people throughout
the Northeast corridor--and other parts of the country as well but
predominantly in the Northeast corridor, and were we not to have
Amtrak, which could be the outcome if we failed to fund it properly, we
would need 10,000 additional flights of 737's a year between Boston and
Washington and New York to accommodate the requirements for
transportation. So that certainly does not look to be an outcome we can
tolerate. But nevertheless the Congress has insisted on cutting
Amtrak's operating subsidy at a much faster rate than they say they can
absorb.
Almost 3 years ago, the leadership of Amtrak developed an operating
plan to reduce its dependency on Federal operating support. Their plan
called for reduced appropriations in each and every year for 6 years.
Unfortunately, for the last 2 years, the Congress has insisted on
cutting Amtrak's operating subsidy at a much faster rate than Amtrak
said it could absorb. Their financial status, therefore, is in dire
straits.
The bill initially laid down proposed some truly severe cuts, some of
which could certainly put Amtrak into bankruptcy. But the subcommittee
amended the funding level for Amtrak's operations account in the
subcommittee and the full committee to get that level up to $344
million, which was the level requested by the administration.
Also, Chairman Shelby agreed to hold a special hearing of the
subcommittee to take a fresh look at Amtrak's operating needs. I am
pleased to say that the final conference agreement includes the full
$344 million for Amtrak's operations as passed by the Senate. It also
includes needed boosts in Amtrak's critical capital accounts, and it
will only be through this kind of capital investment that Amtrak can
one day become free of Federal operating subsidies, which I, and I am
sure all of us here, would like to see.
However, we are not, I warn all Members, ``out of the woods'' with
Amtrak. Amtrak has to gain access to more than $2 billion which was
provided in the recently enacted tax bill so it can make the kind of
capital investments that will bring us a real first-class passenger
railroad, and we need to find a mechanism to do that without exacting
punitive measures against the hard-working employees at Amtrak.
On another issue, more parochial perhaps, Mr. President, I call
attention to that portion of the conference agreement which pertains to
the closure of Bader Field Airport in Atlantic City, NJ. The conferees
carefully reviewed the statutory provisions pertaining to Bader Field
as well as another airport that deserves to be closed. And after
careful review, it was determined that statutory language was not
necessary for the FAA to make the necessary findings. So I am pleased
that the conference agreement continues our progress toward the closure
of these airports as soon as possible.
I want to take a minute, Mr. President, to thank my friend and
colleague, Senator Shelby, for his ability to work closely with others
to try to resolve disputes and see if we could do the best possible job
with the resources that were available to us, and I think he has done
just that. It was a pleasure working with him. As Senator Shelby noted,
I was once the chairman of the committee, and I promised that should I
become chairman again I would work with Senator Shelby just as
carefully and courteously as he has worked with me.
He has been consistently fair-minded in the distribution of funds
between transportation modes and between projects. He has sought to
accommodate the priorities of all Members of the Senate. That has been
the longstanding tradition in the Transportation Subcommittee and it
continues to be the tradition under Senator Shelby's leadership.
I close by thanking my staff also, Peter Rogoff, and thank Senator
Shelby's chief of staff, Tom Young, and Wally Burnett. It is a pleasure
getting this done, and I am pleased to see that we have come fairly
close to the beginning of the fiscal year in having a transportation
bill which can take care of our needs for next year.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
agreement accompanying H.R. 2169, the Department of Transportation and
related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Shelby, for completing his first bill as chairman of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. 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 conference agreement provides $13.1 billion budget authority [BA]
and $13.5 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 $13.1 billion in budget
authority and $37.9 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.
The reported bill is $0.1 billion in budget authority below the
subcommittee's revised section 302(b) allocation, and at the
subcommittee's allocation for outlays.
The spending is less than $0.1 billion in budget authority below the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for the subcommittee, and
$0.4 billion in outlays above the President's request.
Mr. President, it is my pleasure to serve on the subcommittee and to
be a part of the Conference Committee.
I support the conference agreement, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
H.R. 2169, TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
[Fiscal Year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
Budget authority............................................. 300 12,111 ...... 698 13,109
Outlays...................................................... 299 36,905 ...... 665 37,869
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................. 300 12,211 ...... 698 13,209
Outlays...................................................... 299 36,905 ...... 665 37,869
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-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................. ....... 12,157 ...... 698 12,855
Outlays...................................................... 59 36,892 ...... 665 37,616
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................. ....... -100 ...... ......... -100
Outlays...................................................... ....... .......... ...... ......... .......
President's request
Budget authority............................................. ....... -62 ...... ......... -62
Outlays...................................................... ....... 403 ...... ......... 403
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................. ....... -106 ...... ......... -106
Outlays...................................................... ....... 50 ...... ......... 50
Senate-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................. 300 -46 ...... ......... 254
Outlays...................................................... 240 13 ...... ......... 253
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to total due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the fiscal year 1998
Department of Transportation conference report. Due to a provision
added in conference, the Treasury Department will be forced to reduce
the Amtrak tax refund by $200 million. This conference report violates
the budget agreement, amends the recently enacted tax bill, and
unnecessarily straps Amtrak as it is facing a possible strike in the
next few weeks.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a
strong Amtrak supporter, I find this action by the Appropriations
Committee to be outrageous.
As my colleagues in the Senate know, one of my top priorities has
been
[[Page S10755]]
to create a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Congress
has voted time and time again that capital funding is critical to
Amtrak's survival. For that reason, a tax provision was included in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide Amtrak with a tax refund of $2.3
billion for capital expenses.
The bottom line is Amtrak desperately needs capital. According to
GAO, Amtrak must have the capital funding that was provided in the
Taxpayer Relief Act as well as what is provided through the normal
appropriation's process. Without both Amtrak faces bankruptcy.
The language the conferees included in the fiscal year 1998
Department of Transportation conference report would undermine the
efforts Congress has already taken to give Amtrak the capital funding
it needs to survive.
Mr. President, I fully intend to reverse this provision as soon as
the next opportunity arises. It is a clear violation of the spirit and
intent of the budget agreement and of the tax bill signed into law in
August. If this is not reversed, I believe this provision may be the
final straw that finally breaks the financial back of Amtrak.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate will vote today to adopt the
conference agreement on the fiscal year 1998 transportation
appropriations bill. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to
support the measure, because it contains the funding for vitally
important transportation programs.
However, once again, I am compelled to note the various earmarks and
set-aside and low priority spending that is included in this package.
This conference agreement contains legislation mandating specific
actions and spending that the Administration either does not support or
did not request. For instance:
The bill directs the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the USNS
EDENTON (ATS-1), which is currently in inactive status, to the Coast
Guard.
The legislation earmarks Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]
Operations funds and mandates that the FAA provide personnel at Dutch
Harbor, AK, to provide weather and runway observations.
The conference report goes on to highlight millions of dollars that
exceed the Administration's request, and that are targeted for specific
projects.
$8.4 million, for instance, is set aside for the relocation of Coast
Guard Station New Orleans, with $3 million of that amount directed to
improve the adjacent waterway. Incidentally, I understand that the
adjacent waterway improvements are aimed primarily at benefitting
private users of the waterway, not the Coast Guard.
The conference report earmarks all intelligent transportation
operational test funds--nearly $84 million--for 41 specific projects,
even though the Administration requested zero funds for intelligent
transportation operational tests.
The report earmarks all but $3 million of the $400 million provided
for the discretionary bus and bus-related facilities program.
It earmarks all of the $800 million provided for the discretionary
fixed guide way modernization program.
Although the legislation does not mandate certain airport grants, the
conference report and the Senate report, in particular, urge priority
consideration for funding for several specific airport development
projects. I urge the Administration to adhere to its own established
safety and capacity-enhancement criteria in allocating discretionary
airport grants and letters of intent.
The FAA is bound to receive a great deal of guidance in this respect.
However, if it becomes evident that discretionary grants are being used
to satisfy political whims rather than the national interest, I pledge
to review the FAA's discretionary authority in the context of the FAA
reauthorization bill next year.
As I have said many times before, my criticism of this earmarking
process should not be interpreted as a criticism of each of these
projects. I recognize that these projects may be beneficial, and that
several would merit full funding in an objective, competitive
allocation process. Nevertheless, Congress needs to give that process a
chance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire list of
earmarked transportation projects be printed in the Record. As on prior
occasions, I plan to write to the President with a list of projects for
him to consider in exercising his line item veto authority.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Objectionable Provisions in H.R. 2169, Conference Agreement on Fisal
Year 1998 Transportation Appropriations
COAST GUARD
Bill language
Withholds $34.3 million in Coast Guard operating expenses
unless the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) approves the Coast Guard's planned drug interdiction
activities to be funded by that $34.3 million. Allows ONDCP
to transfer some or all of those funds to other agencies. The
Administration request included no such restriction on Coast
Guard.
Directs the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the USNS
EDENTON (ATS-1), which is currently in inactive status, to
the Coast Guard. The Administration request did not include
this provision.
Conference Report
Earmarks $10.0 million to convert the USNS EDENTON (ATS-1)
to a flight deck equipped Coast Guard cutter. This provision
was not included in the Administration's budget request.
Earmarks $4.0 million to renovate a hanger at the Coast
Guard Kodiak, AK facility. This provision was not included in
the Administration's budget request.
Provides $8.4 million in FY 1998 for the relocation of
Coast Guard Station New Orleans and directs that $3.0 million
of that amount be used to improve the adjacent waterway
(including dredging, bulkhead repair, and bulkhead
replacement). The Administration requested $4.2 million in FY
1998 to start the relocation project. However, the adjacent
waterway improvements funded by the Conference Report were
not included in the Administration's request for this project
and are primarily aimed at benefitting private users of the
waterway, not the Coast Guard.
Encourages the Coast Guard to maintain a seasonal (April
15, 1998 to October 15, 1998) air facility at the Hampton, NY
Air National Guard facility at Coast Guard expense. The
Administration request did not include this provision. The
Coast Guard previously announced plans to close its air
stations in Cape May, NJ and Brooklyn, NY and replace them
with an air station in Atlantic City, NJ as a cost-savings
measure.
AVIATION
Bill Language
The bill includes legislative language reauthorizing the
Aviation Insurance Program. The authorizing committees in
both the House of Representatives and the Senate have
approved reauthorization bills that make minor modifications
to the program. Floor action in the House and Senate is
imminent. (Title I)
The legislation earmarks Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Operations funds and mandates that the FAA provide
personnel at Dutch Harbor (AK) to provide real-time weather
and runway observation and other such functions to help
ensure the safety of aviation operations. (Title III, Sec.
335)
Conference Report
The conference report earmarks $400,000 from the FAA
Operations account for satellite communications in Anchorage
(AK), per Senate direction.
The conference report earmarks $400,000 from the FAA
Operations account for a human intervention and motivation
study, per Senate direction.
The conference report directs the FAA to study air traffic
in New Bern (NC), Hickory (NC) and Salisbury/Wicomico County
Airport (MD), and to open contract towers at those airports
in FY 1998 if the studies show that these airports (1) meet
the existing benefit-cost criteria for contract air traffic
control towers, or (2) are justified after consideration of
cost-sharing agreements with non-federal parties.
The report adopts the House recommendation of $15,000,000
for aeronautical data link applications. The Administration
requested no funds for this category.
Per the House direction, the conference report earmarked
$45,440,000 for air traffic management, $27,200,000 above the
Administration request.
The conference report included $24,400,000 for the weather
and radar processor program, in line with the House
recommendation. The Administration did not request funds for
this program.
Like the House recommendation, the conference report
earmarks $970,000 for innovative infrared deicing technology.
There was no Administration request for these funds.
The conference report provides $152,830,000 for continued
development of the GPS wide area augmentation system, as
proposed by the Senate. This amount is $51,300,000 above the
Administration request.
The conference report earmarks $3,140,000 for the expansion
and relocation of remote communications facilities. The
Senate proposed this amount, which is $1,700,000 above the
Administration recommendation.
The conference report incorporates the House recommendation
of $6,700,000 for the Omega termination cost. There was no
budget request for this item.
[[Page S10756]]
The conference report includes $67,000,000 for the
replacement of terminal air traffic control facilities. Both
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended
more than the $62,000,000 budget request.
As did the House, the conference report allocates
$27,600,000 for construction of the Potomac Metroplex,
instead of the budget request of $2,600,000.
The conference report sets aside $20,000,000 for the
Atlanta Metroplex, $4,400,000 more than the Administration
requested, but $5,400,000 less than the House proposed.
The conference report earmarks $7,500,000 for airport
surface detection equipment (ASDE-3). The Administration made
no budget request, although the House recommended $8,600,000.
The conference report earmarks $11,600,000 for the airport
movement area safety system (AMASS), which is below the House
recommendation, but well above the Administration budget
request of zero.
The conference agreement includes funds of $10,000,000
above the budget request, per the Senate, for the acquisition
of additional automated surface observing systems.
At the direction of the House, the conference report
earmarks $3,000,000 for LORAN-C upgrades, although the
Administration did not make a request for this budget item.
The Administration requested no funds for precision
approach path indicators. The conference agreement earmarks
$3,000,000, which is less than both the House and Senate
recommendations.
Per Senate direction, the conference report earmarks
$3,500,000 for anemometers and related equipment in Juneau
(AK). The Administration did not include a budget request for
this item.
The conference agreement allocated $19,200,000 for
sustaining and supporting electrical power systems,
$3,000,000 above the Administration request, but less than
the Senate recommendation.
In line with the House recommendation, the report earmarks
$4,000,000 for a display system replacement simulator at the
Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MN).
The conference report sets aside $12,100,000 of the ``ARTCC
building/plant improvements'' funds for relocation of the
Honolulu center/radar approach control, as proposed by the
Senate.
The conference report directs the FAA to conduct a study to
determine if the air traffic control tower at the Tucson
International Airport needs to be relocated to ensure the
continued safety of flight operations at this airport.
In the Research, Engineering, and Development account, the
conference report sets aside $21,258,000 for capacity and air
traffic management technology, above the Administration
request of $9,108,000.
The conference report provides $15,300,000 for weather
research, above the Administration request of $3,982,000. The
conferees further directed that $500,000 of these funds be
allocated to the Center for Wind, Ice and Fog (NH),
$3,000,000 to Project SOCRATES, and $11,000,000 to the
National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The conference report earmarks $49,202,000 for aircraft
safety technology, in excess of the Administration request of
$26,625,000. The conferees further directed that of the
$21,540,000 provided for ``aging aircraft,'' $3,000,000 is to
go for direct support of the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive
Inspection Validation Center; $1,000,000 for aging aircraft-
related activities at the Center for Aviation Systems
Reliability; $6,000,000 for the Airworthiness Assurance
Center of Excellence; $1,500,000 to conduct research at the
Center for Intelligent Aviation Technologies; and $4,400,000
to further engine titanium component inspection.
The conference report earmarks $26,550,000, above the
Administration request of $10,737,000, for human factors and
aviation medicine. Of that amount, $500,000 is available only
for additional research into assessment, evaluation and
development of training methodologies related to the English
language proficiency problem.
Of the ``explosives and weapons detection'' account,
$1,250,000 is earmarked for the continued development of
pulsed fast neutron transmission spectroscopy technology.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
The conference report reminds the Executive Branch that the
best evidence of Congressional intent can be found in
reports. The conference report specifically states that
earmarks and instructions in the House and Senate reports
that accompany the Transportation Appropriations Act of 1998
remain the intent of the conferees. Unless otherwise
discussed in the statement of managers, the House and Senate
earmarks and instructions stand.
Earmarks all intelligent transportation operational test
funds ($83,900,000) for 41 specific projects, including a
convention center passenger information system to an
emergency weather system. The Senate version originally had
24 earmarks. Specific dollar amounts are established for each
and every project listed. The Administration requested ZERO
for intelligent transportation operational tests.
Earmarks all but $3 million of the $400,978,000 provided
for the discretionary bus and bus-related facilities program.
The Senate version originally had 87 earmarks, the conference
report now has 118. The Administration did not request any
earmarked projects for the discretionary bus and bus-related
facilities program.
Earmarks all of the $800 million provided for the
discretionary fixed guide way modernization program. The
Senate version originally had 40 projects, the conference
report now lists 65 projects. The Administration requested
$634,000,000, all of which was earmarked to fund the federal
share of 15 authorized projects or projects with regional
transit operator systems having Full Funding Grant Agreements
with the Federal Transit Administration.
Conferees ``encourage'' FHWA's central federal lands
highway division to conduct an engineering study of a
landslide affecting parts of a highway within the boundaries
of Badlands National Park.
Directs the Federal Railroad Administration to support the
implementation of short term railroad operating and long term
relocations between railroads and local communities,
including Metaririe, Louisiana.
Earmarks $17 million for life and safety improvements for
the Pennsylvania station redevelopment project in New York
City.
Directs NHTSA to provide $100,000 to develop a biofidelic
child crash test dummy.
Earmarks $700,000 for a new state pilot program for States
experiment with alternative safety restraint bar devices on
school buses.
The Intelligent Transportation System Operational Testing
Earmarks are:
$775,000 for an advanced transportation weather information
system at the University of North Dakota; $1 million for the
Arizona National Center for Traffic and Logistics Management;
$1.5 million for commercial vehicle operations on I-5 in
California; $1.55 million for the Cumberland Gap tunnel in
Kentucky; $1 million for a toll collection system in Dade
County, Florida; $875,000 for a traveler information system
in Franklin County, Massachusetts; $5.5 million for a freeway
traffic management system in Milwaukee; $1.5 million for
Houston, Texas; $1.7 million for a rural intelligent
transportation system corridor in Wisconsin; $500,000 for
Inglewood, California.
$5.5 million for intelligent transportation systems in
Louisiana; $325,000 for a passenger information center at a
convention center in Philadelphia; $6 million for Minnesota
Guidestar; $750,000 for a traffic guidance system in
Nashville, Tennessee; $6 million for National capital
regional congestion mitigation; $1 million for an
organization called National Institute for Environmental
Renewal; $1.25 million for the I-90 connector at Resselaer
County, New York; $1 million for I-275 at St. Petersburg,
Florida; $1 million for an advanced transportation management
system in Syracuse, New York; and $1 million for the Texas
Transportation Institute.
$500,000 for intelligent transportation systems at Rte.
236/I-495 in Northern Virginia; $1 million for the Western
Transportation Institute in Montana; $1.150 million for the
Southeast Michigan snow and ice management system; $3.5 for
intelligent transportation systems in Utah; $1 million for an
intermodal common communications technology project in Kansas
City, Missouri; $1.875 million for intelligent transportation
systems in Reno, Nevada; $8 million for traffic management
new Barboursville, West Virginia; $600,000 for an advanced
traffic analysis center at North Dakota State University; $1
million for an emergency weather system in Sullivan County,
New York; $250,000 for the Urban Transportation Safety
Systems Center in Philadelphia; and $1.1 for toll plaza
scanners in New York City.
$1 million for the computer integrated transit maintenance
environment project at Cleveland, Ohio; $1 million to the ATR
Institute to conduct an intermodal technology demo project at
Santa Teresa, New Mexico; $1 million for hazardous materials
emergency response software for Operation Respond; $750,000
for radio communication emergency call boxes in Washington
State; $1.250 million for a statewide roadway weather
information system in Washington; $1 million for an I-95
multi-state corridor coalition; $9 million for truck safety
improvements on I-25 in Colorado; $2.2 million for traffic
integration and flow control in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; $6
million for intelligent transportation systems for the
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission; and $1 million for cold
weather intelligent transportation system sensing in Alaska.
The Bus and bus-related facilities discretionary program
earmarks:
$25.5 million for Alabama projects (10 projects); $5.5
million for Arizona
[[Page S10757]]
projects (2 projects); $38.4 million for California projects
(23 projects); $5.5 million for Colorado; $5.750 million for
Connecticut (3 projects); $1.5 million for Delaware; $20
million for Florida (10 projects); $9 million for Georgia (2
projects); $5 million for Hawaii; $4.5 million for Illinois;
$4 million for Indiana (2 projects); $4 million for Iowa (2
projects); $1 million for Kansas; $13.9 million for
Louisiana; $8 million for Maryland; $6 million for
Massachusetts (5 projects); $7.5 million for Michigan; $10.5
million for Minnesota (2 projects); and $2 million for
Mississippi.
$16 million for Missouri (3 projects); $9.5 million for
Nevada (2 projects); $6 million for New Jersey; $7.750 for
New Mexico (5 projects); $34.325 million for New York (12
projects); $6 million for North Carolina (2 projects); $12.5
million for Ohio; $3 million for Oregon (3 projects); $27.350
million for Pennsylvania (20 projects); $6 million for South
Carolina (3 projects); $2.250 million for South Dakota; $8
million for Tennessee; $14.950 million for Texas (7
projects); $8.9 million for Utah (5 projects); $2.5 million
for Vermont (2 projects); $6.050 million for Virginia (4
projects); $19.5 million for Washington (12 projects);
$16.250 million for West Virginia (2 projects); and $14
million for Wisconsin (2 projects).
The Discretionary Fixed Guide way Earmarks are as follows:
Projects marked with an asterisk were requested by the
Administration
*$44.6 million for the Atlanta-North Springs Project; $ 1
million for the Austin Capital metro; *$46.250 million for
Boston Piers MOS-2 project; $1 million for the Boston urban
ring; $5 million for commuter rail in Vermont; $2 million for
a commuter rail project in Canton-Akron-Cleveland, Ohio; $1.5
million for the Charleston monobeam rail project in South
Carolina; $1 million for the Charlotte South corridor
transitway project; $500,000 for the Cincinnati Northeast/
Northern Kentucky rail line project; $5 million for a fixed
rail line project in Clark County, Nevada; $800,000 for a
rail line extension to Highland Hills in Ohio; $700,000 for a
Cleveland rail line extension to Hopkins International
Airport; $1 million for a waterfront line extension project
in Cleveland; $8 million for the RAILTRAN project in Dallas-
Fort Worth, Texas; $11 million for the DART North central
light rail extension project; $1 million for a light rail
project in DeKalb County, Georgia; *$23 million for the
Denver Southwest corridor project; $20 million for an East
Side access project in New York; $8 million for the commuter
rail project in Florida's Tri-County area; $2 million for the
Galveston rail trolley system project; $1 million for
Houston's advanced regional bus plan project; $51.1 million
for Houston's regional bus project; and $1.250 million for
Indianapolis' Northeast corridor project;
$3 million for an intermodal corridor project in Jackson,
Mississippi; *$61.5 million for Los Angeles' MOS-3 project;
*$31 million for MARC commuter rail improvements in Maryland;
$1 million for a regional rail project in Memphis, Tennessee;
$5 million for a transit east-west corridor project in
Florida; $5 million for Miami's North 27th Avenue project; $1
million for a corridor project called Mission Valley East;
$500,000 for a Nassau hub rail link EIS; *$60 million for New
Jersey-Hudson-Bergen project; *$27 million for New Jersey
Secaucus project; $6 million for New Orleans Canal Street
corridor project; $2 million for New Orleans streetcar Desire
project; $12 million for North Carolina Research Triangle
Park project; $4 million for Northern Indiana South Short
commuter rail project; $3 million for Oceanside-Escondido
light rail; $1.6 million for Oklahoma City's MAPS corridor
transit project; $2 million for a transitway project in
Orange County; and $31.8 million for Orlando's Lynx light
rail project.
$500,000 for Pennsylvania's Strawberry Hill/Diamond Branch
rail project; $4 million for Phoenix's metropolitan area
transit project; $5 million for Pittsburgh's airport busway
project; *$63.4 million for Portland-Westside/Hillsboro
project; $2 million for a project called Roaring Fork Valley
rail; *$20.3 million for Sacramento's light rail transit
project; *$63.4 million for Salt Lake City's South light rail
transit project; $4 million for regional commuter rail in
Salt Lake City; $1 million for San Bernardino's Metrolink
project; $1.5 million for San Diego's Mid-Coast corridor
project; *$29.9 million for San Francisco's BART extension to
the airport; *$15 million for San Juan Tren Urbano; *$21.4
million for San Jose Tasman light rail transit project; $18
million Seattle-Tacoma commuter and light rail projects; *$30
million for St. Louis-St. Clair light rail transit project;
$2.5 million for a St. George ferry terminal project;
$500,000 for commuter rail between Springfield & Branson,
Missouri; $1 million for a regional rail project in Tampa
Bay; $2 million for a rail project in Tidewater, Virginia; $1
million for a rail project in Toledo, Ohio; $12 million for
transitways projects in the Twin Cities; $2 million for
commuter rail projects at Virginia Railway Express; $2.5
million for the Whitehall ferry terminal project; and $3
million for the central commuter rail project in Wisconsin.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the
conference agreement on H.R. 2169, the Transportation Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1998. I would like to express particular gratitude
to the diligent efforts of Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey who has a
keen understanding of the need to modernize and upgrade the aging
transportation infrastructure of the congested Northeast. I also want
to thank Senator Shelby of Alabama for his leadership this year on
transportation matters.
This bill is very important for Massachusetts and for the Nation. For
Massachusetts, it contains funding for several important projects. I am
very pleased that the conference report provides $3 million for the
Worcester Union Station Intermodal Center. This facility, which has
been recognized as a model for both urban revitalization and
transportation planning, will be situated in a newly renovated Union
Station and will provide convenient regional access to commuter rail,
Amtrak, inter-city and intra-city buses, taxis, airport shuttles, bikes
and private passenger vehicles for Worcester County's 710,000
residents.
I am also pleased that the report provides continued funding--$1
million in fiscal year 1998--for the restoration of historic Union
Station in Springfield, MA, as an active intermodal center. Once
restored, Springfield Union Station will provide an essential gateway
to the Pioneer Valley to alleviate congestion and better serve the
local and interstate bus and Amtrak passenger traffic which is growing
by 9 percent annually. This facility will also help connect the city's
two largest job districts which are currently divided by disjointed
traffic and development patterns. With the Federal funds provided last
year and over $1 million in local funds, the city has quickly moved
forward on project planning, land assembly and demolition of a
deteriorated adjacent building. Indeed, the State legislature has
approved $10 million to date for this important project.
I welcome the Conference Committee's support in the form of $2
million in funding for the Urban Ring transit system in the Boston
region. The need for such a system arises from the strongly radial
structure of Greater Boston's existing transit system. It consists of
spokes emanating from the downtown core to neighborhoods of Boston and
cities and towns throughout eastern Massachusetts. With an Urban Ring
transit route, Massachusetts will begin to link these spokes in an arc
around downtown, providing easier access to centers of economic growth
outside the core and reducing congestion in the subway system by
allowing commuters the opportunity to travel between home and workplace
without the necessity of traveling into the downtown area and back out
again.
I appreciate the Conference Committee's continued strong support for
the South Boston Piers Transitway project, a vital element in the
Commonwealth's State Implementation Plan required under the Clean Air
Act. The Transitway, expected to carry approximately 6.4 million riders
annually, will be integrated with the extensive network of transit,
commuter rail, and bus services now available at Boston's South Station
and will catalyze the development of the South Boston Piers area which
has the highest potential for development and job creation in the City
of Boston.
I'm also pleased that the conference report includes $875,000 for the
Franklin County Visitors Information System. In western Massachusetts,
many small, renowned cultural and historical museums and attractions
are spread over distances where the lack of an effective road system
hinders potential visitors. The Franklin County Chamber of Commerce, in
conjunction with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, hopes to
develop a guidance system that makes use of the latest interactive
kiosk technologies and mapping capabilities simultaneously to improve
the road network for western Massachusetts and enhance access to the
multiplicity of community resources.
I support the Conference Committee's decision to provide greater
funding for Amtrak than the amount of funding in the Senate bill.
However, it is my hope that the Senate and the House will devote
extraordinary efforts over the next few weeks to enact Amtrak
reauthorization legislation so that the capital funding set aside
during budget reconciliation can be released and spent. Only then will
Amtrak receive sufficient capital funding over the next several years.
It is no secret that the year-to-year battles over
[[Page S10758]]
capital funding for Amtrak have greatly inhibited Amtrak's ability to
operate an efficient, and financially stable national passenger rail
service. Congress must act on this matter as soon as possible.
I also support the Conference Committee's decision to provide $4.8
billion in Federal transit assistance. Though ISTEA has not yet been
reauthorized, I strongly believe that making investment in public
transportation a top priority will bear rich economic, social and
environmental dividends for the Nation.
The Conference Committee is to be commended for the fiscal year 1998
Coast Guard budget. This budget represents a significant increase from
fiscal year 1997 funding and certainly represents Federal dollars well
spent. But I must add that my enthusiasm is somewhat tempered by my
deep concern regarding the current state of resource allocation and
usage within the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's responsibilities have
grown with the many new fisheries enforcement requirements that came
with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act last year and
continuing pressure in the constant battle in the war on drugs. I am
concerned that, in the effort to cover all of these responsibilities,
we may be making tradeoffs that may come back to haunt us later.
As you well know, I represent a coastal State that has a 200-year-
plus history of reliance on the Coast Guard. For that reason, I
probably have a better understanding than many Senators of the value of
the Coast Guard to the citizens of our Nation that make a living in the
coastal regions or on the high seas. In fact, the Massachusetts coastal
zone contributes 53.3 percent, or $70.7 billion, to the state economy.
Further, there are over 10,000 fishing families in New England that
depend on the Coast Guard for their safety and are in fact viewed as
their ``real'' guardian angels. One of many concerns that I have for
these families is that with the recent catastrophic failure of the New
England groundfish fishery that our fishermen are traveling further, in
rougher weather, to catch fewer fish. Additionally, because of the
personal financial hardship that has resulted from the collapse of the
fishery, I fear that they are cutting corners to save a dollar such as
not outfitting their boats and crews with the vital safety equipment
that are required by law. I am concerned that we may cutting corners at
their expense.
We may be at a point where we need to stop and reassess the current
condition of the Coast Guard. As we continue to examine the Federal
budget for those areas where cost savings can be achieved, we need to
realize that there exists a point beyond which most Americans are not
willing to go in order to save a dollar, and I believe we are at a
point where we need to take a strategic look at the ability of the
Coast Guard to continue to meet the demands of the American public into
the 21st century.
In sum, taking the concerns I have voiced into account, I support
this bill because it approaches transportation spending from a national
perspective, and it strives to maintain and improve the transportation
infrastructure that is so vital to the economic well-being of our
Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. Thank you,
Mr. President.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have an agreement we have worked on
which basically says that on some appropriate vehicle in the future I
will work with Chairman Stevens and other members to include a
technical correction to this conference report to accomplish the
following:
At section 337(c) we will insert, after the words: ``House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations,'' ``and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.''
I am doing this at the suggestion of Senator Hutchison from Texas,
and we have agreed to this.
Mr. President, at this time I will yield back the remainder of my
time if the Senator from New Jersey will.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. SHELBY. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
conference report accompanying H.R. 2169 is agreed to.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
address the Senate for 12 minutes as if we were in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 1284
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
____________________