[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.

                          ____________________