[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6706-H6739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 510 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4328.

                              {time}  2303


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4328) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not read the whole statement, but just about two 
paragraphs to make a couple of points. This is the first transportation 
appropriations bill since the enactment of the Transportation Equity 
Act, TEA21, which has made significant effects on the way the committee 
operates.
  For example, TEA21 amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two 
additional spending categories or ``firewalls,'' the highway category 
and the transit category. These firewalls make it virtually impossible 
for the committee to make drawdown adjustments to those funding levels 
in the appropriation process over the next 5 years.
  As such, these firewalls create a new mandatory appropriations within 
the discretionary caps which has undermined the committee's flexibility 
to fund other equally important programs.
  The bill reflects the first attempt to produce a balanced bill in 
this new environment. The committee was allocated a 7.4 percent 
increase, or $2.8 billion in outlays for the coming year. However, the 
increases for the highway and transit programs guaranteed by TEA21 
fully consumed the 7.4 percent increase provided to the subcommittee. 
As a result, the other agencies must compete for the leftover funding, 
which is essentially at a hard freeze.
  Within these constraints, the bill continues to place the highest 
priority on safety programs and drug interdiction of the Coast Guard. 
But, as a result of the lack of flexibility available to the committee, 
and after meeting the highway and transit guarantees, sufficient 
funding is not available for many critical and important programs of 
the Coast Guard, FAA, and even NHTSA. While the highway and transit 
programs are feasting at a banquet, these other agencies are left to 
scramble for the crumbs.
  One other point I want to make, I have told the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard that should the committee receive any additional 
allocation, perhaps Defense allocation later on, that we will make 
every effort to supplement the current funding provided in the bill.
  Today the Committee on Appropriations brings to the floor the ninth 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. H.R. 4328, the fiscal year 
1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill, totals $46.9 billion. This figure includes all obligation 
authority (that is to say, new budget authority, guaranteed obligations 
contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations). This is an 
increase of $4.7 billion over the fiscal year 1998 level and $3.9 
billion more than the budget request.
  This is the first transportation appropriations bill since the 
enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA21). TEA21 has had significant effects on the way in which this 
Committee operates and it has diminished the flexibility available to 
the Committee. For example, TEA21 amended the Budget Enforcement Act to 
provide two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls''--the 
highway category and the transit category. These firewalls make it 
virtually impossible for the Appropriations Committee to make downward 
adjustments to these funding levels in the appropriations process over 
the next five years. As such, these firewalls created new mandatory 
appropriations within the discretionary caps. This has undermined the 
Committee's flexibility to fund other equally important programs.
  This bill reflects the best attempt to produce a balanced bill in 
this new environment. The subcommittee was allocated a 7.4 percent 
increase or $2.8 billion in outlays for the coming year. However, the 
increases for highways and transit programs guaranteed TEA21 fully 
consume the 7.4 percent increase provided to the Subcommittee. As a 
result, the other agencies must compete for leftover funding, which is 
essentially at a hard freeze. Within these constraints, the bill 
continues to place the highest priority on the department's safety 
programs and drug interdiction activities of the Coast Guard. But, as a 
result of lack of flexibility available to this Committee and after 
meeting the highway and transit guarantees, sufficient funding is not 
available for many critical and important programs of the Coast Guard, 
the FAA, and even NHTSA. While the highway and transit programs are 
feasting at a banquet, these agencies are left to scramble for the 
crumbs.
  Were it not for the firewalls, a portion of the generous 7.4 percent 
increase or $2.8 billion could have been allocated to improvements in 
aviation or maritime safety, and more could have done to fight the 
menace of illegal drug trafficking, while still providing significant 
increases in highways and transit programs. the bill shies away from 
funding new authorizations contained in TEA21. The bill also does not 
contain funding above the guaranteed amounts for the highway and 
transit programs, as other critical programs, including safety and drug 
interdiction activities, would have had to have been cut in order to 
fund the new authorizations and any increases above the guarantee.
  Selected major recommendations of the bill include the following:
  (1) $7.7 billion for the FAA, an increase of $275 over the 1998 
level;
  (2) $1.8 for the AIP program, an increase of $100 million;
  (3) $2.7 billion for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, including 
$446 million for drug interdiction activities (an increase of 11 
percent);
  (4) $609 million for Amtrak, essentially the same level as the 
Administration's request;
  (5) $461 million for NHTSA, the fully authorized level, including 
$100 million for motor carrier safety grants that are transferred from 
FHWA;
  (6) $25.5 billion for federal-aid highways, as is guaranteed by 
TEA21; and
  (7) $5.4 billion for transit programs, the same level as guaranteed 
by TEA21.
  Returning to the Coast Guard, the bill provides $2.7 billion, 
essentially a hard freeze.

[[Page H6707]]

Within these funds, the Committee has increased funds allocated to 
fight the war on drugs to $446 million, an increase of eleven percent. 
The previous commandant and many members of the House advocated this 
increase. Unfortunately, given the tight budgetary caps this year and 
the firewalls imposed on the Committee, the Committee was unable to 
provide resources above the overall Coast Guard budget request without 
unacceptably harming critical safety programs of other DOT agencies. 
Clearly, the funding levels contained in this bill will require the 
Coast Guard to prioritize its activities and missions.
  I have told the Commandant that should additional budgetary resources 
be made available to this subcommittee later in the year, the Committee 
would endeavor to supplement the funding currently provided in the 
bill.
  In addition, the Committee is very concerned about the Coast Guard's 
ability to address all of its missions adequately in future years, 
given budget constraints and the effect of the surface transportation 
firewalls. Although the service has performed admirably over the past 
four years in reforming and reorganizing itself into a more efficient 
organization, it is possible that there will still be insufficient 
funding over the next ten years to enable the Coast Guard to maintain 
today's level of service. To address this concern, the bill provides 
$1,000,000 specifically for the establishment of a blue-ribbon panel to 
study the future capital needs, roles, and missions of the Coast Guard. 
This panel is to include the secretary of transportation, and current 
and former commandants of the Coast Guard, and shall address and make 
recommendations on the best roles and missions of the Coast Guard over 
the next twenty years, and the capital budget requirements to meet 
those needs.
  With respect to funding for Amtrak, the bill provides $609 million, 
nearly the same level of funding as requested by the President. In 
addition to this appropriation, the Taxpayer Relief Act makes available 
$1.1 billion to Amtrak in fiscal year 1999. Together this is an 
historic level of funding for the troubled corporation. With the 
adoption of the new authorization for Amtrak and the availability of 
the tax credits, the Committee would hope to be optimistic about 
Amtrak's future. However, the Committee is not convinced that Amtrak's 
fiscal year 1999 budget proposal provides for the long-term viability 
and solvency of the Corporation.
  To gain a better understanding of Amtrak's financial condition, the 
Committee contacted the Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General, the General Accounting Office, and a diverse group of non-
federal railroad experts. This group was asked to comment on whether 
Amtrak continues to operate in a fragile state, as many testified, or 
if the recent legislative actions have placed the Corporation on a more 
stable footing. There was a wide divergence of opinions, but everyone 
expressed some degree of concern about Amtrak's long-term viability. At 
this point in the record, I would like to insert the responses provided 
to the Committee. In summary, it appears that the internal changes 
Amtrak has made, and the external changes provided in the authorization 
Act and TRA, do not guarantee Amtrak's viability or even disperse the 
storm clouds which have been looming on Amtrak's horizon for many 
years.
  With respect to bus and new start projects, the Subcommittee received 
requests totaling nearly $2.8 billion for new start projects and $1.7 
billion for bus projects, for which TEA21 allocated $902.8 million and 
$200 million, respectively. As a result, it was extremely difficult to 
accommodate all the requests. Here, again, TEA21 significantly affected 
the way the Subcommittee operated this year. First, TEA21 vastly 
inflated expectations, authorizing over 170 new start projects, while 
providing $902.8 million for new starts in fiscal year 1999. After 
funding the fourteen full funding grant agreements (which, incidentally 
TEA21 completely ignores) only $224.8 million is available to fund 
these 170 projects. Moreover, TEA21 imposes a new limitation, which 
requires that no more than eight percent of funding provided for new 
starts (or about $70 million) can be allocated for projects that are in 
preliminary engineering and design (of which there are over 150 such 
projects in fiscal year 1999). Similarly, with respect to bus earmarks, 
TEA21 earmarked 150 bus projects, totaling nearly $240 million, more 
than one-half of the funding made available for buses. This action 
further reduced the flexibility of the Subcommittee to accommodate all 
the requests made of the Subcommittee for bus projects.
  The Committee has worked closely with the minority and the gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Sabo, to produce a bill that has broad bipartisan 
support. The bill was reported out of Subcommittee and Full Committee 
without significant change or amendment. I know of no significant 
controversy or problems with this bill. Moreover, I am confident that 
the President would sign this bill if it were presented to him in its 
current form. I urge its immediate adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

[[Page H6708]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.003



[[Page H6709]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.004



[[Page H6710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.005



[[Page H6711]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.006



[[Page H6712]]

  It has come to the Committee's attention that the table on page 97 of 
House Report 105-648 showing the estimated distribution of the federal-
aid limitation by state is in error. The following table reflects the 
corrections:

                                            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION                                           
                                                         Estimated FY 1999 Obligation Limitation                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Estimated FY 1999                                                                             
                         States                                Formula        FY 1999 Minimum       Appalachia           Total          Change from FY  
                                                              Limitation         Guarantee                                                   1998       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................        356,717,558         36,249,673         44,386,075        437,353,306         65,155,925 
Alaska..................................................        176,862,464         75,457,577                  0        252,320,041         36,054,471 
Arizona.................................................        303,242,010         41,689,478                  0        344,931,488         50,387,631 
Arkansas................................................        253,048,519         29,531,271                  0        282,579,790         39,941,480 
California..............................................      1,863,262,921        128,492,399                  0      1,991,755,320        283,405,981 
Colorado................................................        246,794,527         12,783,562                  0        259,578,089         37,782,233 
Connecticut.............................................        263,140,366         59,984,184                  0        323,124,550         45,790,935 
Delaware................................................         89,175,631         10,204,143                  0         99,379,774         14,671,844 
Dist. of Col............................................         87,500,316                  0                  0         87,500,316         12,604,317 
Florida.................................................        836,403,576        164,045,867                  0      1,000,449,443        144,013,176 
Georgia.................................................        631,182,058        106,041,763         17,738,763        754,962,181        108,862,001 
Hawaii..................................................        101,013,240         10,150,553                  0        111,163,793         15,739,476 
Idaho...................................................        135,558,256         23,611,006                  0        159,169,262         21,832,705 
Illinois................................................        684,346,858         41,374,700                  0        725,721,558        102,311,366 
Indiana.................................................        443,339,425         62,812,583                  0        506,152,008         71,922,451 
Iowa....................................................        251,743,987         10,229,839                  0        261,973,826         37,409,782 
Kansas..................................................        247,975,576          7,191,787                  0        255,167,363         36,377,429 
Kentucky................................................        301,686,021         33,262,150         40,717,006        375,665,177         56,302,900 
Louisiana...............................................        309,567,618         29,387,327                  0        338,954,945         47,647,164 
Maine...................................................        105,067,775          9,995,936                  0        115,063,711         16,554,386 
Maryland................................................        298,563,022         22,232,349          6,940,719        327,736,090         47,244,813 
Masschusetts............................................        393,447,726         10,135,128                  0        403,582,854       (140,623,520)
Michigan................................................        601,179,804         73,909,316                  0        675,089,120         95,546,926 
Minnesota...............................................        299,390,185         20,374,380                  0        319,764,565         44,901,436 
Mississippi.............................................        240,285,680         18,147,691          4,977,512        263,410,883         37,788,019 
Missouri................................................        472,680,856         35,242,540                  0        507,923,396         71,861,955 
Montana.................................................        185,761,378         34,956,689                  0        220,718,067         32,472,136 
Nebraska................................................        172,373,765          3,434,871                  0        175,808,636         25,898,549 
Nevada..................................................        136,454,844         21,912,644                  0        158,367,488         22,908,306 
New Hampshire...........................................         97,761,103         11,247,908                  0        109,009,011         16,622,698 
New Jersey..............................................        528,704,456         25,550,346                  0        554,254,802         77,979,908 
New Mexico..............................................        189,037,604         24,551,758                  0        213,589,362         30,523,462 
New York................................................      1,000,631,061         89,011,429          9,566,292      1,099,208,782        154,675,252 
North Carolina..........................................        508,903,855         76,141,397         26,133,026        611,178,278         89,086,984 
North Dakota............................................        136,379,058         10,668,948                  0        147,048,006         21,634,743 
Ohio....................................................        669,345,173         49,795,300         20,015,376        739,155,849        106,209,804 
Oklahoma................................................        312,524,560         24,659,577                  0        337,184,137         48,475,721 
Oregon..................................................        243,605,252         16,279,527                  0        259,884,779         36,477,315 
Pennsylvania............................................        885,942,462         56,749,443        108,530,182      1,051,222,087        152,748,355 
Rhode Island............................................        112,218,000         19,004,264                  0        131,222,264         19,114,099 
South Carolina..........................................        299,227,293         46,689,562          2,174,947        348,091,802         50,532,521 
South Dakota............................................        141,306,695         13,733,400                  0        155,040,095         22,168,368 
Tennessee...............................................        402,458,421         36,818,342         49,762,093        489,038,856         72,857,127 
Texas...................................................      1,377,362,296        192,615,348                  0      1,569,977,644        225,934,036 
Utah....................................................        156,165,398         12,107,424                  0        168,272,822         23,808,584 
Vermont.................................................         93,676,350          7,932,136                  0        101,608,486         14,817,139 
Virginia................................................        490,201,761         56,048,394         10,459,943        556,710,098         80,470,677 
Washington..............................................        360,017,192         23,031,097                  0        383,048,289         53,953,390 
West Virginia...........................................        170,488,388          4,857,645         61,717,244        237,063,277         36,651,007 
Wisconsin...............................................        370,808,051         57,655,199                  0        428,463,250         61,103,421 
Wyoming.................................................        143,559,043         12,010,150                  0        155,569,193         22,841,062 
    SUBTOTAL............................................     19,178,089,434      2,000,000,000        403,118,775     21,581,208,209      2,901,451,946 
SPECIAL LIMITATION--                                                                                                                                    
    HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS..............................  .................  .................  .................      1,271,395,575        348,270,075 
    WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE...............................  .................  .................  .................         68,175,000         45,675,000 
    ALLOCATION RESERVE..................................  .................  .................  .................      2,590,221,216        715,602,979 
                                                         ===============================================================================================
        TOTAL LIMITATION................................  .................  .................  .................     25,511,000,000      4,011,000,000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     June 4, 1998.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Housing Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee 
         on Transportation, Washington DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In your letter of April 28, 1998 you 
     asked me to offer my views on the long term viability of 
     Amtrak and to comment on materials presented at your March 
     11, 1998 hearings on Amtrak. In a subsequent conversation 
     with Ms. Stephanie Gupta of your staff, she explained that 
     you were aware that I am no longer working with GAO's 
     Transportation Group but that you were interested in my views 
     based on the fact that I have been involved in research on 
     Amtrak and intercity railroad passenger issues since Amtrak 
     was created. My doctoral thesis addressed the economics of 
     intercity rail passenger operations and subsequent studies I 
     conducted for the National Transportation Policy Study 
     Commission, the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project, and 
     the State of Wisconsin assessed Amtrak's potential for 
     contributing to the solution of energy, environmental, and 
     safety problems. Therefore, although I later served as a 
     consultant to the GAO on Amtrak issues and directed some of 
     GAO's studies of Amtrak after I joined that organization, the 
     views expressed here are solely my own and should in no way 
     be considered as representing those of the General Accounting 
     Office.

                          Overall Observations

       Perhaps the most striking thing about Amtrak's (and FRA's) 
     testimony is how familiar it all sounds. If one goes back to 
     the testimonies of Tom Downs in the 90s, Graham Claytor in 
     the 80s, or Paul Reistrup in the 70s the refrain is the same. 
     If I may paraphrase:
       ``Amtrak is turning the corner and is making significant 
     progress through its actions and will be achieving major 
     productivity gains (if it is able to negotiate work rule 
     changes, replace infrastructure, etc). As a result, the 
     Corporation is now well-positioned to reduce its need for 
     federal support.''
       But the corner never quite gets turned. Amtrak registers 
     progress for a while, but then ``events'' always seem to 
     overtake it. It can be many things: deferred maintenance of 
     way or delays in modernizing the rolling stock and locomotive 
     fleet cause service deterioration, or the economy sours and 
     ridership forecasts fail to materialize, or wage increases 
     can no longer be postponed--something always happens to 
     reverse or forestall the gains and the Corporation's future 
     again is in peril
       Let me begin by saying two things in Amtrak's defense. 
     First, it has presented a more realistic assessment of its 
     current situation and of the risks it faces than it has in 
     the past. The Corporation clearly recognizes the conflicting 
     goals it is being asked to pursue. On page 2 of its 
     Legislative Report and Federal Grant Request Amtrak 
     acknowledges:
       If the Corporation focuses too heavily on immediate 
     returns, it risks undermining the ability to deploy its 
     assets in a way that provides a national route system. 
     However, without a balanced approach to infrastructure/
     capital investment, Amtrak will certainly not achieve 
     operating self-sufficiency by 2002, and may not generate 
     sufficient cash to survive.
       In short, Amtrak is saying that it cannot operate a 
     national system of passenger trains and achieve operating 
     self-sufficiency--at least not without substantial federal 
     support to use for capital and capital-related expenses.
       Second, it is not as though successive Amtrak managements 
     have not made serious attempts to become more efficient. 
     Indeed, as far as passenger train services are concerned, 
     Amtrak might well be the most efficient system in the world--
     at least by such standard productivity measures as revenue 
     per employee or passenger miles per employee. In many other 
     nations, rail passenger services are government operations 
     and are highly subsidized. While the quality of service 
     abroad, in terms of speed, on-time performance, or on-board 
     amenities, is typically very high--these come at a price. 
     Pressures

[[Page H6713]]

     are building to make these systems more efficient, but they 
     are generally well behind Amtrak.
       Thus, while Amtrak has received something on the order of 
     $20 billion in public support over its history, it has 
     periodically made serious attempts (often at congressional 
     prodding) to find ways to cut costs and operate more 
     efficiently.\1\ In the past, it has restructured its route 
     system (within the now removed confines of maintaining a 
     defined basic network of intercity routes), secured labor 
     concessions often well beyond those gained by the nation's 
     freight railroads, and reorganized its operations more along 
     the lines of a private company with ``profit centers'' in 
     order to decentralize decision making responsibility. 
     However, future opportunities to find ways to hold the line 
     against mounting losses might be more difficult to come by 
     without a more dramatic rethinking of Amtrak's role in the 
     nation's transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Including federal operating and capital subsidies, NEC 
     improvements, and state and local support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       There are three areas where I believe the Congress should 
     have reason for concern--the failure to register meaningful 
     increases in ridership, substantial increases in labor costs, 
     and the problems inherent in an aging rolling stock and 
     locomotive fleet.

                               Ridership

       In 1972, Amtrak's first full year of operation, it carried 
     16.2 million passengers who travelled 3 billion passenger 
     miles. Although deficits mounted rapidly in the early years, 
     Amtrak was successful in reversing the long term decline in 
     patronage. By 1977 ridership had risen nearly 20 percent to 
     19.2 million passengers and passenger miles of travel had 
     grown by more than 40 percent to 4.3 billion. Twenty years 
     later, Amtrak still carries only about 20 million passengers 
     annually, although average trip length has increased. During 
     this same 20-year period airline traffic has more than 
     doubled and interstate highway traffic nearly so. Amtrak 
     hopes to carry a record 22 million passengers this year, but 
     this relatively meager improvement is being recorded in the 
     midst of a very prosperous economy. The demand for travel 
     services, whether it be for business or pleasure, is highly 
     sensitive to economic conditions. Amtrak has failed to 
     register significant ridership gains even in these ``best of 
     times.''
       Amtrak has increased revenues by increasing fares. Two-
     thirds of the increase in passenger related revenues came 
     from an increase in ticket yields (fares) while one third 
     came from increased traffic. Amtrak's yields are now higher 
     than airline yields and have been growing more rapidly in 
     recent years. While it is true that in the markets where 
     Amtrak and airlines compete head-to-head, airline yields are 
     typically higher, Amtrak's competitive position will 
     deteriorate if whatever price advantage it holds shrinks. The 
     bottom line is that fare increases might not be as available 
     a strategy as it has been--at least not with respect to 
     traffic that is interested in transportation. The ``cruise 
     market'' is one where Amtrak might have more leeway for fare 
     increases, but I have always believed that this business has 
     always been underdeveloped by Amtrak.
       Amtrak hopes for significant traffic growth following the 
     introduction of high speed (or at least higher speed) service 
     between Boston and New York City. Amtrak has developed more 
     realistic ridership projections over time, but still projects 
     that it will capture a share on the air/rail travel market 
     akin to what it carries between New York and Washington. I 
     would expect that its ridership will grow after the 
     significant reduction in travel times, but I have always been 
     skeptical about whether it will increase ridership so that it 
     replicates the NYC-DC experience. The Metroliners came at a 
     time when rail still maintained a significant market share. 
     Whether the time savings that will be achieved on the north 
     end of the NEC will generate traffic volumes comparable to 
     the southern end remains to be seen. But, Amtrak is a 
     national system. Outside the Northeast Corridor Amtrak 
     continues to experience large operating losses. Amtrak West 
     has registered better ridership and revenue increases, but 
     there is some concern that these gains have been costly to 
     acquire.
       While I applaud Amtrak's overall candor, I am somewhat 
     struck by the new CEO's view that Amtrak needs ``to know much 
     more about the travel market demand and our role in the 
     marketplace.'' After nearly 30 years of operations and a 
     mountain of studies, I would have thought Amtrak gained some 
     knowledge about market demand and the nature of its 
     ridership. Still, those of us who argued for devoting 
     resources to more sophisticated demand estimation 
     methodologies can feel somewhat vindicated. I do have some 
     concern, however, with Amtrak's use of the ``attractiveness 
     of high speed trains themselves'' as an element in its HSR 
     projections.

                              Labor Costs

       For quite some time Amtrak has had labor agreements with 
     its unions that are more favorable than those of the major 
     freight railroads. Amtrak recently signed a new agreement 
     with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees that it 
     hopes will set the pattern for bargaining with its other 12 
     unions. Finally, Amtrak notes that for many of its positions, 
     its employees are paid less than those doing comparable tasks 
     on the commuter lines. On this score, I believe that freight 
     railroad employees around the nation, not commuter line 
     employees in high cost Metropolitan areas are the relevant 
     comparison group. Amtrak's labor costs are roughly the same 
     as those working in the freight industry. Labor costs are 
     Amtrak's largest expense and these costs are rising.
       Amtrak projects a near quarter billion dollar increase in 
     labor costs over the life of the agreement. About 20 percent 
     of this is to be offset by work rule changes and productivity 
     improvements. The result says Amtrak is an incremental annual 
     cost increase of less than $40 million on a billion dollar 
     annual payroll over the 5-year life of the contract. However, 
     2 of the 5 years have already past, so the payout is over the 
     remaining three years.
       While some of the numbers are there, I have difficulty 
     figuring out just what the contracts imply for Amtrak's 
     future. First, Amtrak focuses on the ``incremental cost'' 
     above and beyond the COLA's and GWI. But these are 
     substantial. Second, I can not tell what the annual impact 
     might be if these contracts were extended to 2001 and beyond. 
     The data on page 123, Amtrak's submission of the results of 
     extrapolating the BMWE contract suggest that wages will 
     increase $150 million in 2000 adding the new costs to the 
     existing COLAs. This does not strike me as insignificant. 
     Amtrak expects nearly $30 million savings mostly from work 
     rule changes, but whether these projections will likely be 
     realized I can not judge without more information.
       The bottom line is that labor costs are rising and, if 
     ridership and revenue growth fail to fully materialize 
     (either because the economy turns down and/or competition 
     from others modes intensifies) Amtrak's financial 
     condition will become even more precarious.

                            Age of Equipment

       Amtrak inherited an aged fleet of locomotives and passenger 
     cars. The average diesel locomotive was 19 years old and none 
     of the electrics were less than 29 years old--together they 
     averaged 22 years. The average passenger car was more than 20 
     years old and some were nearly 35 years old. These were best 
     cars available from the railroads that formerly ran the 
     intercity passenger trains. Amtrak was remarkably successful 
     in updating the fleets, especially the locomotive fleet. In 
     1981, the average locomotive was just 7 years old. The 
     passenger car fleet also was gradually replaced so that by 
     1981 the average age of the rolling stock was about 14 years. 
     New equipment is more reliable, more attractive, and less 
     costly to maintain. Unfortunately, the gains of the first 
     decade have been lost and Amtrak's fleets are again aging. 
     Locomotives are now 12 years old on average and rolling stock 
     about 20 years old.
       Some of the equipment that pulls up the average age is 
     reserve equipment, not in regular operations. Amtrak has a 
     schedule for new car and locomotive deliveries that it 
     submitted in response to your post-hearing questions. 
     However, even as new equipment is brought on line each year, 
     all the other equipment gets one year older. I would like to 
     see a table combining acquisitions and retirements and the 
     impact on average ages of the locomotive and passenger car 
     fleets.

                               Conclusion

       The monies made available through the TRA combined with 
     increased flexibility in how the funds are spent ensures that 
     in the near term the struggle will not become a crisis. But, 
     Amtrak continues to face an uncertain future. Further fare 
     hikes to increase revenues might be limited by air fare 
     competition, low gasoline prices, and a slowing economy. Its 
     labor cost situation might be as best it can do given the 
     nature of the operation, but it will add to the problem of 
     eliminating the need for federal operating subsidy.
       I hope these observations are helpful as you consider the 
     future of the nation's intercity rail passenger system.
           Sincerely,
     Francis P. Mulvey. 
                                  ____



                                    General Accounting Office,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1998.
     Subject: Intercity Passenger Rail: Prospects for Amtrak's 
         Financial Viability

     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related 
         Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Since it began operations in 1971, the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never 
     been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal 
     subsidies for operating and capital expenses. Amtrak 
     currently provides intercity passenger rail service along 40 
     routes that cover about 22,800 miles in 44 states and 
     Washington, D.C. Because of your continuing concerns about 
     the financial stability of Amtrak, you asked us, along with 
     others, to provide our comments on Amtrak's long-term 
     financial viability. Specifically, as agreed with your 
     office, we examined (1) Amtrak's current financial status and 
     (2) the outlook for its long-term financial viability. Our 
     comments are primarily based on our recent work examining 
     Amtrak's financial condition.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In summary, during the last 3 fiscal years, Amtrak reduced 
     its annual net loss by only $72 million--from $834 million in 
     fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997.\2\ 
     Amtrak projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million 
     this fiscal year, resulting in a cash-flow deficit of up to 
     $200 million and contributing to substantial deficits in the

[[Page H6714]]

     next 2 years. In response, Amtrak's Board of Directors 
     approved a revised strategic business plan in March 1998 that 
     would use about $800 million of anticipated federal capital 
     appropriations over the next 5 years for maintenance 
     expenses, which traditionally have been treated as operating 
     expenses. According to Amtrak, the flexibility to use 
     appropriated capital funds to pay for maintenance would 
     provide it with stability over the next several year, thereby 
     averting a possible bankruptcy. However, using these federal 
     funds for maintenance expenses will correspondingly reduce 
     the funding available for Amtrak's proposed capital 
     improvements that are needed to enhance its long-term 
     viability. Amtrak recently initiated a market-based analysis 
     of its route system that is important for its long-term 
     viability because Amtrak's current route system will continue 
     to incur substantial annual net losses. Amtrak remains 
     heavily dependent on federal funding to pay its operating and 
     capital expenses and will remain so for the foreseeable 
     future.

                               Background

       In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, 
     Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for 
     federal operating subsidies--except for federal contributions 
     to retirement payments for railroad employees--by fiscal year 
     2002 and established a ``glidepath'' of decreasing federal 
     operating subsidies for each intervening year.\3\ The 
     Congress, in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 
     1997, stated that federal financial assistance to cover 
     operating losses incurred by Amtrak should be eliminated by 
     2002. In addition, the act requires the newly established 
     Amtrak Reform council to develop an action plan for a 
     ``restructured and rationalized national intercity passenger 
     rail system'' if it determines, at any time after December 
     1999, that Amtrak is not achieving its financial goals or 
     that it would require operating subsidies after December 
     2002. Under such circumstances, Amtrak would be required to 
     develop and submit to the Congress an action plan to 
     liquidate the railroad.
       The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 makes a total of $2.2 
     billion available to Amtrak in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to 
     acquire capital improvements and to pay, among other things, 
     certain equipment maintenance expenses.\4\ Amtrak has stated 
     that it will use funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act for those 
     high rate-of-return capital investments that over time would 
     strengthen its long-term financial viability, improve 
     productivity and efficiency, and reduce its reliance on 
     federal operating subsidies.

                   AMTRAK'S Current Financial Status

       Despite efforts to increase revenues and reduce costs, 
     Amtrak is in a very precarious financial condition. Amtrak 
     has reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal 
     year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997. In March 1998, 
     Amtrak's Board of Directors approved a revised strategic 
     business plan for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 that 
     projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million in 
     fiscal year 1998--$83 million more than in fiscal year 1997. 
     Amtrak's projected net loss is larger in fiscal year 1998 
     because (1) its agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance 
     of Way Employees in November 1997 would add about $35 million 
     in expenses in fiscal year 1998 if its terms were extended to 
     all of Amtrak's unions and (2) its estimated net revenue from 
     its express service for transporting high-value, time-
     sensitive merchandise was recently reduced from $59 million 
     to $11 million in fiscal year 1998. In addition, fiscal year 
     1997 revenues included $69 million from the one-time sale of 
     telecommunications rights-of-way and real estate in the 
     Northeast Corridor.
       Amtrak has a serious cash-flow problem because its revenues 
     and federal operating subsidies do not cover its expenses. 
     While Amtrak borrowed $75 million to meet its operating 
     expenses in fiscal year 1997 and initially planned to borrow 
     $100 million in fiscal year 1998, its March 1998 revised plan 
     projects a cash-flow deficit of up to $200 million in this 
     fiscal year, which could exceed its $170 million line of 
     credit. To cover its cash-flow deficit, Amtrak plans to use 
     $100 million from its short-term lines of credit and 
     temporarily use up to $100 million in funds from the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act in fiscal year 1998 for certain equipment 
     maintenance expenses.

                 AMTRAK's Long-Term Financial Viability

       Amtrak's ability to remain financially viable is influenced 
     by three factors--the federal subsidies it receives, its 
     ability to increase revenues and control costs, and the 
     business decisions it makes regarding its route system. 
     Current prospects for Amtrak's long-term viability are 
     uncertain unless the corporation reduces its net losses by 
     increasing revenues and controlling costs. As currently 
     structured, Amtrak will continue to require federal capital 
     and operating support in fiscal year 2002 and well into the 
     future.


                     Reliance on Federal Subsidies

       Amtrak is unlikely ever to be free of the need for federal 
     capital subsidies because of the capital-intensive nature of 
     railroads. Amtrak's March 1998 strategic business plan shows 
     that Amtrak will also depend heavily upon federal subsidies 
     for operating expenses through fiscal year 2003, and, 
     therefore, will not achieve its goal of eliminating the need 
     for federal support for operating expenses by fiscal year 
     2002.
       An immediate issue affecting Amtrak's long-term viability 
     is the amount and use of federal support for fiscal year 
     1999. The administration proposes a capital appropriation of 
     621.5 million but no operating appropriation. The budget 
     justification also proposes that, similar to Federal Transit 
     Administration grantees, Amtrak be allowed to use 
     appropriated capital funds to pay expenses for preventive 
     maintenance that Amtrak has traditionally treated as 
     operating expenses.\5\ Amtrak's March 1998 strategic business 
     plan proposes to spend $1.8 billion (65 percent) of the 
     Administration's proposed $2.8 billion in capital 
     appropriations for maintenance expenses between fiscal years 
     1999 and 2003 to reduce its net losses and cash-flow 
     deficits. As a result, Amtrak would spend $800 million (15 
     percent) less for capital improvements over the next 5 years 
     than it had previously planned under its glidepath approach.
       According to Amtrak, the flexibility to use appropriated 
     capital funds to pay for maintenance would provide it with 
     stability over the next several years, thereby averting a 
     possible bankruptcy. However, spending capital funds on 
     maintenance would decrease the amount of money available for 
     capital improvements and equipment overhauls that will be 
     necessary to increase revenues and reduce costs. Such 
     investments are essential to Amtrak's long-term viability.


         amtrak's ability to increase revenue and reduce costs

       Amtrak's ability to increase its revenues and reduce costs 
     also will influence its long-term viability. However, while 
     the corporation has made some progress in increasing its 
     revenues and controlling costs over the past 3 fiscal years, 
     it did not achieve its budget goals in fiscal years 1996 and 
     1997. Furthermore, since 1990, Amtrak's revenues, considered 
     in constant dollars, have been relatively flat.
       Amtrak's plans for increasing revenues have depended 
     largely on expanding its express service for transporting 
     high-value, time-sensitive merchandise and introducing high-
     speed rail service in the Northeast Corridor. However 
     Amtrak's revised strategic business plan reduced its 
     projections of profits from its express merchandise service 
     from about $75 million annually to $21 million in fiscal year 
     1999 and $27 million annually through fiscal year 2003. On 
     May 28, 1998, the Surface Transportation Board granted 
     Amtrak's application to transport express merchandise over 
     the Union Pacific Railroad Company's and the Southern Pacific 
     Transportation Company's track, provided that Amtrak offers 
     ``a premium transportation service at premium rates--
     expedited, regularly scheduled train service provided at 
     prices which are generally higher than freight service--that 
     is provided as an adjunct to Amtrak's passenger service.'' 
     Amtrak expects that express merchandise service will improve 
     the financial performance of certain of its long-distance 
     routes.\6\
       Amtrak projects that fully implementing high-speed rail 
     service on the Northeast Corridor by the end of fiscal year 
     2000 will significantly increase net revenues for the routes 
     between Washington, DC, and Boston and will foster the growth 
     of other routes along the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak projects 
     that high-speed rail service will provide profits of $93 
     million in fiscal year 2000 and $219 million in fiscal year 
     2003. If achieved, these additional net revenues would 
     eliminate almost all of the Northeast Corridor Strategic 
     Business Unit's net loss. However, even with these net 
     revenues, Amtrak expects that its systemwide net loss will 
     decline by only $158 million--from $845 million in fiscal 
     year 1998 to $687 million in fiscal year 2003.
       Two bright spots for Amtrak are its commuter operations and 
     increased contributions by states for intercity passenger 
     rail services that have particularly benefited their 
     residents. Amtrak's profits from operating commuter trains 
     grew from $18 million in fiscal year 1995 to $38 million in 
     fiscal year 1997. Similarly, operating support from the 
     states for Amtrak's intercity passenger service more than 
     doubled between fiscal years 1994 and 19997. In fiscal year 
     1997, 12 states provided a total of amount $70 million to 
     subsidize service on 17 Amtrak routes.
       Amtrak's long-term financial viability will be affected by 
     its ability to control costs as well as increase revenues. 
     However, Amtrak's record in controlling costs indicates that 
     achieving future goals for cost reductions may be difficult. 
     Amtrak did not meet its cost-reduction goals for fiscal years 
     1996 and 1997. Furthermore, while revenues from Amtrak's core 
     intercity passenger services grew by about 4 percent in 
     fiscal year 1997 (including a 7-percent increase in passenger 
     revenues),\7\ expenses for these services its debt--primarily 
     incurred to modernize its fleet of locomotives and passenger 
     cars--will rise from $76 million in fiscal year 1997 to $97 
     million in fiscal year 1999.
       Amtrak also will face challenges in controlling future 
     costs because labor costs will increase significantly. Amtrak 
     estimates that extending the terms of its November 1997 
     agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
     Employees to all of its unions will increase costs between 
     $60 million and $70 million a year between fiscal years 1999 
     and 2003.\8\ In addition, Amtrak and Federal Railroad 
     Administration officials told us that reforms contained in 
     the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 will provide 
     little, if any, immediate effect on Amtrak's financial 
     performance and that their long-term benefits are unclear.\9\ 
     Specifically, the act (1) Repealed a statutory

[[Page H6715]]

     ban on contracting out work that would result in employee 
     layoffs, except for food and beverage service and (2) 
     eliminated, effective May 31, 1998, statutory and contractual 
     arrangements to protect labor that provided up to 6 years' 
     compensation and benefits for employees who loose their jobs 
     because of specific covered actions, such as the 
     discontinuance of service on a route or the closure of a 
     maintenance facility. In the long term, repealing the ban 
     on contracting out work may provide Amtrak with important 
     flexibility in labor negotiations and cost control. Amtrak 
     and its unions are addressing labor protection 
     arrangements in collective bargaining negotiations. While 
     Amtrak currently does not have plans to close any of its 
     40 routes, eliminating these arrangements could become 
     important if, for example, the market analysis that Amtrak 
     recently initiated results in a decision to substantially 
     reorganize its route system.


          business decisions regarding amtrak's route network

       The business decisions Amtrak makes regarding the structure 
     of its route system will play a crucial role in determining 
     its long-term viability. Amtrak spends almost $2 for every 
     dollar of revenue it earns in providing intercity passenger 
     rail services.\10\ Only the Metroliner's high-speed service 
     between Washington, D.C., and New York City is profitable; 
     all of Amtrak's other 39 routes operate at a loss. Fourteen 
     of Amtrak's 40 routes lost more than $100 per passenger in 
     fiscal year 1997. Amtrak will continue to incur large net 
     losses if it continues to operate its current route system.
       Figure 1 shows that, during fiscal year 1997, fewer than 
     100 passengers, on average, boarded Amtrak intercity trains 
     and connecting buses per day in 13 states.\11\ (See the enc. 
     for the estimated daily average ridership by state in fiscal 
     year 1997.) Amtrak officials noted that ridership in a state 
     is not directly linked to Amtrak's profitability because 
     other factors, including ticket prices and a train's 
     expenses, need to be considered. Nevertheless, we believe 
     that the relatively large number of states with relatively 
     low ridership, along with other financial performance data, 
     is indicative of Amtrak's financial performance problems.
       Within a year, Amtrak plans to complete a market-based 
     analysis of the role and growth potential of its national 
     passenger rail system. This study will identify opportunities 
     to increase Amtrak's revenues and market share by analyzing 
     customer demand, revenues, expenses, and net contributions 
     associated with each route in Amtrak's route system to 
     identify service amenities, pricing changes, and route 
     changes that may improve the corporation's ridership and 
     revenues in the short and the long terms. Amtrak's study will 
     also consider various service alternatives and their 
     potential effects on revenues and expenses. In your March 11, 
     1998, hearing on Amtrak's fiscal year 1999 appropriation, the 
     acting President of Amtrak testified that he was not 
     comfortable that today's national system is `'the most 
     effective, economical market-driven system.'' He added that 
     Amtrak's challenge over the next year is to try to ``define 
     and articulate a national system that works . . . within 
     reasonable economic parameters.'' This market-based analysis 
     is the third extensive study of Amtrak's route system 
     undertaken in the past 4 years; the first two studies, 
     completed in 1994 and 1996, focused on cutting costs.
       While Amtrak management considers this market-based 
     analysis, which will identify alternatives to the current 
     route system, to be critical for securing its long-term 
     viability, past experience indicates that major changes to 
     the existing route system will be difficult to make and that 
     the financial effects of changes will be difficult to 
     predict. Amtrak has encountered opposition when it 
     has proposed to cut routes because of the desire by 
     various groups to see passenger train service continued in 
     potentially affected communities. For example, in response 
     to concerns raised by affected parties, Amtrak scaled back 
     initial plans to reduce routes and services in fiscal 
     years 1995 and 1997. During fiscal year 1995, Amtrak 
     reduced and eliminated service on several routes, 
     resulting in a 13-percent reduction in the total miles 
     that Amtrak trains traveled between fiscal years 1994 and 
     1996 and $54 million in cost savings in fiscal year 1995. 
     However, anticipated cost savings were not realized in 
     fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1997, Amtrak closed two 
     routes to increase the frequency of service on three other 
     routes; to date, these adjustments have not led to 
     financial improvements in Amtrak's bottom line.
       We discussed the contents of this report with Amtrak 
     officials, including the Vice President for Finance and Chief 
     Financial Officer, who provided comments to improve the 
     report's technical accuracy, which we incorporated as 
     appropriate.
       We are sending copies of this report to the acting 
     President of Amtrak; the Secretary of Transportation; and the 
     Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make 
     copies available to others upon request.
       If you or your staff have any questions about this report, 
     please contact me at (202) 512-3650. Major contributors to 
     this report were Richard Cheston, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, and 
     James Ratzenberger.
           Sincerely yours,

                                        Phyllis F. Scheinberg,

                                               Associate Director,
                                            Transportation Issues.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Intercity Passenger Rail: Financial Performance of 
     Amtrak's Routes (GAO/RCED-98-151, May 14, 1998), Intercity 
     Passenger Rail: Outlook for Improving Amtrak's Financial 
     Health (GAO/T-RCED-98-134, Mar. 24, 1998), Intercity 
     Passenger Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible Amtrak 
     Liquidation (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2, 1998), and DOT's Budget: 
     Management and Performance Issues Facing the Department in 
     Fiscal Year 1999 (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-76, Feb. 12, 1998). In 
     addition, we obtained information on Amtrak's ridership by 
     state and for Washington, D.C.
     \2\ Net loss is Amtrak's total expenses--including 
     depreciation of its equipment and infrastructure--minus total 
     revenues. Amtrak refers to this difference as its operating 
     loss.
     \3\ Amtrak revised its glidepath by requesting an additional 
     $84 million in federal operating support for fiscal year 1999 
     because, in previous years, it had not received the federal 
     operating funding that the original glidepath had assumed.
     \4\ Amtrak is required to pay 1 percent of the $2.3 billion 
     made available under the act to each state that it does not 
     serve.
     \5\ Preventive maintenance is designed to keep Amtrak's 
     locomotives, passenger cars, and other equipment; facilities; 
     and infrastructure in good operating condition.
     \6\ Amtrak anticipates that the three routes that lost the 
     most money per passenger in fiscal year 1997 could generate 
     substantial new revenues if its express merchandise service 
     was expanded. These routes are the Sunset Limited (between 
     Los Angeles and Orlando), the Texas Eagle (between Chicago 
     and San Antonio or Los Angelse), and the Southwest Chief 
     (between Chicago and Los Angeles).
     \7\ These include revenues from passenger ticket sales, food 
     and beverage sales, mail and express merchandise service, as 
     well as contributions from the states.
     \8\ Productivity savings negotiated with the unions are 
     accounted for in this estimate.
     \9\ For a fuller discussion of these issues, see GAO/RCED-98-
     151.
     \10\ For its business operations as a whole, Amtrak spends 
     $1.46 for every dollar it earns.
     \11\ Our calculations of the daily average number of 
     passengers by state are estimates and exclude riders for whom 
     the states in which they boarded are unknown. This unknown 
     ridership (which primarily includes passengers who have 
     multiride tickets that do not identify a particular origin or 
     destination) totaled about 2.5 million in fiscal year 1997, 
     or 6,724 passengers per day.

                                   AMTRAK RIDERSHIP BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1997                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated                       Estimated  
                                                   Annual number   daily average   Annual number   daily average
                      State                        of passengers     number of     of passengers     number of  
                                                     boarding       passengers       alighting      passengers  
                                                                     boarding                        alighting  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................          30,843              85          30,720              84
Arizona.........................................          42,587             117          43,507             119
Arkansas \1\....................................           8,446              70           8,176              68
California......................................       4,054,944          11,109       4,024,714          11,027
Colorado........................................         115,150             315         113,343             311
Connecticut.....................................         427,073           1,170         443,339           1,215
Delaware........................................         272,370             746         274,597             752
District of Columbia............................       1,494,748           4,095       1,494,276           4,094
Florida.........................................         431,933           1,183         442,993           1,214
Georgia.........................................          68,678             188          68,600             188
Idaho...........................................           4,887              13           5,105              14
Illinois........................................       1,337,426           3,664       1,334,269           3,656
Indiana.........................................          48,136             132          50,878             139
Iowa............................................          24,121              66          28,252              77
Kansas..........................................          16,121              44          17,781              49
Kentucky........................................           4,214              12           3,688              10
Louisiana.......................................         102,975             282         103,401             283
Maryland........................................         686,424           1,881         685,603           1,878
Massachusetts...................................         591,258           1,620         570,265           1,562
Michigan........................................         377,669           1,035         378,131           1,036
Minnesota.......................................          68,124             187          66,669             183
Mississippi.....................................          49,052             134          50,120             137
Missouri........................................         205,932             564         204,491             560
Montana \2\.....................................          50,378             138          51,458             141
Nebraska........................................          17,688              48          18,273              50
Nevada..........................................          49,083             134          77,382             212
New Hampshire...................................             780               2             831               2
New Jersey......................................         544,155           1,491         545,934           1,496

[[Page H6716]]

                                                                                                                
New Mexico......................................          42,118             115          41,592             114
New York........................................       3,600,203           9,864       3,584,546           9,821
North Carolina..................................         236,220             647         235,460             645
North Dakota \2\................................          28,718              79          29,259              80
Ohio............................................          92,540             254          91,518             251
Oregon..........................................         267,430             733         261,470             716
Pennsylvania....................................       1,778,265           4,872       1,778,437           4,872
Rhode Island....................................         177,679             487         185,880             509
South Carolina..................................          80,292             220          80,041             219
Tennessee \3\...................................          20,018              55          19,930              55
Texas \1\.......................................          77,981             644          76,705             634
Utah............................................          19,778              54          20,529              56
Vermont.........................................          49,224             135          50,330             138
Virginia........................................         446,924           1,224         440,320           1,206
Washington......................................         372,068           1,019         378,107           1,036
West Virginia...................................          22,814              63          24,339              67
Wisconsin.......................................         182,305             499         182,427             500
Wyoming \4\.....................................           3,701              39           3,482              37
Unknown \5\.....................................       2,454,435           6,724       2,453,624           6,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The average daily ridership computation reflects that Arkansas and Texas each had train service only three  
  times a week during fiscal year 1997.                                                                         
\2\ Montana and North Dakota had train service four times a week from October 1, 1996, to May 10, 1997, when    
  Amtrak restored daily service through Montana and North Dakota on the Empire Builder route.                   
\3\ Tennessee had train service six times a week from October 1, 1996, to May 11, 1997, when Amtrak restored    
  daily service through Tennessee on the City of New Orleans route.                                             
\4\ The average daily ridership computation reflects that Amtrak discontinued train service in Wyoming on May   
  10, 1997, when it closed the Pioneer route.                                                                   
\5\ Amtrak could not readily identify the states in which these passengers boarded or alighted from its trains. 
                                                                                                                
 Note: Amounts include passengers on Amtrak trains and connecting buses. Each state, except Arkansas, Montana,  
  North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, had daily train service provided by one route or more operating  
  within the state. Amtrak intercity passenger trains did not serve Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Oklahoma, or South   
  Dakota in fiscal year 1997.                                                                                   
Source: GAO's analysis of Amtrak's data.                                                                        

     Amtrak, The National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Current 
                    Performance and Future Prospects

                         (By Randolph R. Resor)


                      statement of qualifications

       My name is Randolph R. Resor. I am Vice President, Costing 
     and Economic Analysis for ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc., a 
     transportation consulting firm with offices at 900 Kings 
     Highway North, Suite 208, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002.
       I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and 
     Economics from the University of Chicago in 1975. I attended 
     Northwestern University's Transportation Center for a year of 
     graduate study in transportation management, completing 
     courses in finance, marketing, transportation planning, and 
     economic geography.
       I have spent twenty-one years in the rail transportation 
     industry. In 1977, I began my career as a Special Assistant 
     to the president of the Association of American Railroads, 
     where I performed economic analysis and assisted in 
     developing industry positions on a number of topics, 
     including waterway user charges and railroad deregulation. 
     After nearly two years at the AAR, I moved to the United 
     States Railway Association. Following conveyance of the rail 
     assets of the bankrupt railroads to Conrail, USRA had a 
     continuing role in monitoring the use of Federal funds to 
     improve the Conrail properties. My responsibility at USRA was 
     the analysis of Conrail's ongoing track reconstruction 
     program. Issues included appropriateness of the planned 
     projects and expected operational and safety improvements 
     resulting from track reconstruction.
       Following my time at USRA, I worked in transportation 
     consulting for two years. Projects included an oversight 
     contract on the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program 
     (NECIP), publication of the FRA Accident/Incident Bulletin 
     and the rail/highway crossing accident statistics for 1980, 
     and an assessment of intermodal cargo movement through U.S. 
     ports.
       In 1982 I accepted a position with the New York City 
     Transit Authority (NYCTA) in New York, the agency which 
     operates the New York City subway system. I worked at NYCTA 
     from 1982 through 1987. My first task was the construction of 
     a cost forecasting model, which required me to develop 
     relationships between measures of size and output (number of 
     trains, number of miles of track) and spending by the NYCTA. 
     NYCTA tracks had become severely deteriorated due to lack of 
     maintenance, and because of my specialized knowledge of the 
     relationship between traffic levels and track maintenance 
     costs, after developing the cost model I was assigned to 
     prepare a plan for systemwide track reconstruction. When the 
     plan was implemented, I was given responsibility for 
     budgeting, planning, and scheduling each year's work program.
       In 1987 I joined ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. as Director of 
     Costing, and became Vice President in 1992. In the past 
     eleven years I have directed studies of the economics of 
     heavy axle load fright cars, quantified the economic benefits 
     of advanced train control systems for railroads, and 
     investigated the economic potential of new technologies in 
     areas as diverse as locomotive design, composite materials, 
     and hot wheel bearing detectors. But a major focus of my work 
     at ZETA-TECH has been the development and application of 
     engineering-based methodologies for assigning track 
     maintenance costs to particular types of rail traffic and 
     particular parts of the railroad. Together with ZETA-TECH's 
     president, Allan Zarembski, Ph.D., I developed the Weighted 
     System Average Cost (WSAC) methodology for assigning costs to 
     tracks and traffics. WSAC has been applied on six North 
     American railroads, and was accepted in December 1995 by the 
     Interstate Commerce Commission as the ``best available'' 
     methodology for determining the incremental track maintenance 
     cost associated with the operation of a particular type of 
     rail service (e.g. passenger trains).


                         I. summary of purpose

       I am submitting this statement at the request of Frank 
     Wolf, Representative from Virginia and chairman of the 
     Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations 
     Committee. The purpose of my statement is to assess the 
     current condition and future prospects for Amtrak, the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation, based on testimony 
     and General Accounting Office (GAO) reports with which I have 
     been provided by committee staff.
       Amtrak began its operations in 1971. In nearly 30 years, 
     the debate over Amtrak has repeatedly revisited the same 
     issues: Lack of a dedicated funding source; inadequate 
     capital investment; failure to exploit many obvious markets 
     for passenger service; unreliable trains and poor service 
     quality; high cost relative to the service levels provided.
       The materials presented in testimony before the 
     Subcommittee by the Federal Railroad Administration and 
     Amtrak tell the same story yet one more time. Again, Amtrak 
     is in crisis. According to FRA, over the next five years 
     Amtrak will receive more funding than it has in any five-year 
     period since its foundation. But again, capital funding is 
     inadequate according to Amtrak, which claims to need 
     double the $2.2 billion in the Taxpayer Relief Act. Over 
     the last four years, Amtrak has attempted a painful 
     restructuring of its operations that has produced the 
     first major service abandonments since 1980. Annual 
     reductions in Federal operating subsidies, along with a 
     failure to realize budgeted economies and revenue 
     increases, have resulted in steadily increasing negative 
     cash flows, to the point that bankruptcy of the 
     corporation is being seriously discussed.\1\ Yet at the 
     same time, large investments in high-speed train sets and 
     electrification are being made along the Northeast 
     Corridor, Western states are funding purchase of Talgo 
     tilt-trains and other new rolling stock, and patronage, at 
     least in some areas, is increasing. So the question 
     remains: what is the future of Amtrak? This paper will 
     attempt to develop an objective answer to that question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     ii. amtrak's current condition

     A. Operating results
       Amtrak is pleased to boast of its increasing revenues. 
     However, a look at Amtrak's own figures tells a somewhat 
     different story than Amtrak chooses to present? What it shows 
     is the following:
       Revenues from passenger train operations (tickets, food and 
     beverages, 403b services) have decreased from 70% of total 
     revenues in 1988 to 57% in 1997.
       Passenger miles reached their lowest level in ten years in 
     1996, and are up only slightly for 1997.
       Passenger revenue (in current dollars) has been essentially 
     flat since 1990.
       The load factor has declined steadily from 53% in 1988 to a 
     low of 46% in 1996, improving slightly to 47% in 1997.
       Amtrak is also pleased to boast about the ``glide path'' to 
     self-sufficiency. While it is true that Amtrak's operating 
     subsidy was only $223 million in 1997, 42% of the 1988 level, 
     this reduction was largely achieved by running an operating 
     deficit. In 1988, with a $532 million operating subsidy, 
     Amtrak ran a year-end surplus of $35 million. Thus, the net

[[Page H6717]]

     loss was only $497 million. In 1997, the year-end deficit was 
     $70 million, and there was also a Federal contribution of 
     $142 million for excess RRTA payments (this amount was 
     included in the 1988 subsidy). Thus, in 1997 Amtrak actually 
     received $444 million and ran a $70 million deficit beyond 
     this, totaling to a net loss of $521 million. It is difficult 
     to see this result as an improvement. Furthermore, Amtrak 
     generated 9% fewer passenger-miles in 1997 than in 1988.
       Figure 1 shows Amtrak's sources of revenue over the last 
     ten years. Note that while total revenue has grown by 51% in 
     current dollars, passenger revenue (income from carrying 
     passengers on trains) has grown only 27% in the same period. 
     Amtrak is in effect getting out of the passenger train 
     business, generating increasing amounts of income from 
     contract operation of commuter trains, from real estate, and 
     (most recently) attempting to add express freight services to 
     its trains. [Figures not reproduced.]
       In terms of total cash contribution, the commuter service 
     operating contracts generated the largest part of this non-
     passenger revenue. Carriage of U.S. mail was a distant 
     second. Despite substantial investments in equipment by 
     Amtrak during 1997, the ``express'' business generated very 
     little revenue, as Amtrak notes in its legislative report. It 
     did, however, generate a great deal of controversy. Amtrak is 
     currently embroiled in a proceeding before the Surface 
     Transportation Board in which Union Pacific Railroad and 
     Conrail are challenging the corporation's right to solicit 
     express traffic on its passenger trains. I will return to 
     this issue at a later point in this paper.
       It also must be noted that, in constant (inflation-
     adjusted) dollars, passenger revenues have been stable since 
     1989. The selective increases in ``yield'' that Amtrak notes 
     have simply kept pace with inflation. The improvement in 
     subsidy per passenger over the same period appears to result 
     mainly from an increase in the percentage of short-distance 
     riders (at lower fares and therefore lower subsidy). This is 
     unsurprising, since the majority of the service reductions 
     since 1994 have affected long-distance trains.
     B. Ridership trends
       Amtrak has trumpeted recent increases in West Coast 
     Business unit patronage. However, the WCBU is the smallest of 
     Amtrak's three Strategic Business Units (SBUs), and only the 
     increase in 1997 (10% over 1996) was large enough to 
     interrupt a secular downtrend in annual passenger miles that 
     had been continuous since 1991.
       Passenger miles reached a high (for the Amtrak era) of 
     6.365 billion in calendar 1979 (the year of the Iranian 
     revolution), and declined thereafter through the mid 1980s. 
     Since then, there has been some growth. However, the most 
     recent peak was in 1991, when Amtrak generated 6.2 billion 
     passenger miles. This number equaled the passenger miles 
     generated by the private railroads in 1970, the last full 
     year of private operation of passenger trains. Passenger 
     miles have declined continuously since (except for 1997).
       The number of passengers carried by Amtrak also peaked in 
     1979 (the year of the Iranian revolution) at 21.5 million. 
     This level of ridership was not reached again until 1988, and 
     was exceeded only in 1990, 1991, and 1993. With the 1995 
     restructuring, the number of passengers returned to the 
     levels of the late 1970s.\3\
       The point of this discussion is that an examination of 
     Amtrak ridership trends reveals no clear trend. Ridership has 
     been stable, with minor increases and decreases, for nearly 
     twenty years. Adjustments to the size of the network appear 
     only to shift ridership from one area to another. Increases 
     on one route or in one market appear to be balanced, in 
     general, by decreases elsewhere. Figure 2 shows trends since 
     1970.
     C. Restructuring and revenue initiatives
       Amtrak's attempts at restructuring appear to have failed to 
     achieve the economies claimed for them. Ridership has 
     declined from its 1991 high, and revenues have only kept pace 
     with inflation despite large increases in prices in some 
     markets (as an example, a round-trip Metroliner coach ticket 
     from Philadelphia to Washington cost $96 in 1993. The current 
     price is $156). In fact, there is considerable anecdotal 
     evidence that Amtrak may have exhausted opportunities to 
     increase passenger fares. On the Northeast Corridor, 
     Metroliner fares now equal or exceed prices charged by 
     competing airlines. Elsewhere, the cost of air travel also 
     restrains opportunities for increases. A round-trip from 
     Philadelphia to Jacksonville, FL in an Amtrak sleeping car 
     now exceeds the weekday, unrestricted air fare by about $200.
       By its actions, Amtrak appears to have recognized the 
     limited opportunities for increasing fare yield. Instead, the 
     company has pursued real estate development, U.S. Mail 
     contracts, and the movement of ``express'' traffic. As noted 
     earlier, Amtrak in 1997 realized only 57% of its total 
     revenue from passenger fares, as against 70% in 1998.
       The difficulty with Amtrak's apparent strategy is that, to 
     date, it seems to have borne no fruit. The expansion of 
     express traffic, promised in Amtrak's business plan to yield 
     as much as $70 million in incremental annual revenue, is tied 
     up in a Surface Transportation Board proceeding. There may be 
     some additional opportunities in the management of commuter 
     rail operations or in additional mail contracts. However, the 
     volume of mail and express now being carried by Amtrak has 
     already caused the corporation to lengthen schedules (to 
     allow for the extra switching needed, and to allow time for 
     loading and unloading).
       The bottom line is that the United States now has less 
     passenger service than in 1988, for about the same subsidy.


                         III. Future Prospects

     A. Real estate and express
       Since 1988, when Washington Union Station was opened with 
     great fanfare, Amtrak has attempted to exploit the commercial 
     potential of real estate along the Northwest Corridor and 
     elsewhere. However, real estate revenues have never exceeded 
     $55 million annually, and show no clear growth trend over the 
     last ten years. It appears unlikely that Amtrak will be able 
     to meet its mandate of self-sufficiency through real estate 
     development.
       Mail, baggage, and express revenues have doubled, to $70 
     million annually, in ten years. However, the express business 
     has been much slower to develop. In written testimony 
     provided to the Transportation Subcommittee, George 
     Warrington of Amtrak noted that net revenues from express 
     traffic, forecast at $75 million to $76 million in the 
     September 1997 Strategic Plan, have been reduced to a maximum 
     of $27 million in 1999 and beyond. Even with a favorable STB 
     decision, it appears doubtful that express revenues could 
     close the revenue gap for Amtrak.
     B. Payments to freight railroads
       Amtrak is really two separate railroads. In the 
     Northeastern U.S., the right-of-way is owned by Amtrak, which 
     allows use of it (for a fee) by commuter and freight 
     railroads. Their payments are used to defray part of the 
     maintenance cost.
       Elsewhere in the U.S., Amtrak is almost always a tenant on 
     privately-owned freight railroads, who receive compensation 
     for use of the track. By law, Amtrak pays only the 
     ``incremental'' cost of this use (defined as the cost that 
     would be avoided should Amtrak cease operating). This cost is 
     very substantially less than what the private railroads 
     typically pay each other for ``trackage rights'', and 
     accounts for much of the controversy over Amtrak haulage of 
     express traffic. Table 1 compares typical Amtrak payments 
     with those paid by freight railroads to each other.

                 TABLE 1.--PAYMENTS FOR TRACKAGE RIGHTS                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Amount per car  
                                         Basis               mile       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight railroad (typical)......  Car mile..........  $0.20 to $0.30    
UP/SP Merger trackage rights to   Ton mile..........  $0.18             
 BNSF.                                                                  
Amtrak to freight railroads.....  Train mile........  $0.07 to $0.20,   
                                                       depending on     
                                                       train length     
Freight railroads to Amtrak for   Car mile..........  $0.89             
 NEC use.                                                               
Commuter rail operators.........  Train mile........  $1.00 to $2.00    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In December of 1995, Amtrak was dealt a setback that is 
     mentioned nowhere in the GAO reports, the Amtrak Legislative 
     Report, or in testimony. In that month, the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission found for Conrail in a compensation case 
     against Amtrak. Amtrak was directed to pay nearly $3 million 
     per year for use of Conrail trackage. This decision set the 
     pattern for renegotiation of contracts with all private 
     railroads over which Amtrak operated. All contracts expired 
     in 1996. Previously, Amtrak used a formula that reduced the 
     incremental cost of passenger train operation as total 
     railroad traffic volume increased, and this formula had 
     produced costs as low as $0.70 per train mile on some 
     railroads. Following the ICC decision, Amtrak's new contracts 
     have been averaging about $1.00 per train mile for track 
     usage, plus incentives for on-time performance.
       The net cost of these new contracts to Amtrak may be as 
     much as $50 million per year, but still does not give the 
     freight railroads the level of payments they would receive 
     from providing trackage rights to each other. As long as the 
     operation of Amtrak trains produces substantially less 
     revenue for the freight railroads than operation of freight 
     trains, Amtrak can expert resistance to initiatives such as 
     the planned move into the express business. Also, the Western 
     railroads are seriously capacity-constrained, as the UP 
     ``service meltdown'' has made clear. Additions to capacity 
     can be expensive. If these investments must be made as a 
     result of the presence of Amtrak trains, there may be an 
     expectation that Amtrak will pay part, or all, of the cost.
       By any objective measures, Amtrak enjoys access to the 
     freight railroad network at ``below market'' rates. While 
     this may continue, so will the resistance of the freight 
     railroads to expansion of service. Potentially, this 
     resistance could result in increased costs of access for 
     Amtrak in the future, especially if substantial increases in 
     passenger train traffic are proposed.
     C. The Northeast corridor
       Ownership of the Northeast Corridor (the railroad from 
     Boston to Washington, with branches from New Haven to 
     Springfield, MA and from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, PA) was 
     conveyed to Amtrak by Conrail in 1976 as part of the transfer 
     of assets from the Penn Central estate and other railroads to 
     Conrail, local governments, and commuter rail operators. In 
     the subsequent 22 years, a total of about $2.5 billion has 
     been spent on capital improvements of various kinds. Service 
     on the ``southend'', from New York to Washington, is 
     generally reliable and quick, with schedules of three and a 
     half hours or less typical for most trains. The ``northend''

[[Page H6718]]

     is still operated with diesel locomotives from New Haven to 
     Boston, since the original funding of 1977 and later was 
     insufficient to electrify the railroad. However, 
     electrification is now finally underway, and Amtrak pins many 
     of its hopes for the future on the increased patronage 
     expected from the faster Boston-New York service that will 
     result.
       The NEC SBU already carries more than half of Amtrak's 
     passengers. Completion of the northend improvements will only 
     strengthen its position.
       The Northeast Corridor (NEC) represents an unusual 
     opportunity for Amtrak. First, it has excess capacity that 
     might be sold to freight operations. Second, it serves the 
     largest urban area and one of the largest ports in America 
     (New York). Amtrak has been ambivalent about increased 
     freight traffic on the NEC, however, despite the announced 
     intention of Norfolk Southern (in its Conrail purchase 
     filing) to greatly increase its freight operations in the 
     corridor. In fact, there was until recently a marked lack of 
     interest on Amtrak's part in even renegotiating the existing 
     Conrail NEC access agreement.
       The opportunity for Amtrak lies in more effectively 
     exploiting the NEC for freight operations, and possibly also 
     in a lease/purchase arrangement (possibly with states, port 
     authorities, or an entity specifically created for the 
     purpose) that could make badly needed capital available in 
     return for annual lease payments. The value of the NEC may be 
     large enough to provide the funds Amtrak says it requires.
     D. The ``glide path''
       Amtrak has recognized that certain elements of the 
     September 1997 Strategic Business Plan, such as the projected 
     revenue from express service, are no longer realistic. 
     However, it appears that the ``glide path'' itself may no 
     longer be a realistic expectation. Amtrak's request to divert 
     part of the $2.1 billion in TRA funds to operating subsidy is 
     a virtual admission that financial self-sufficiency, at 
     present, appears out of reach. Certainly, nothing in the 
     trends of the last 20 years suggests that Amtrak may expect 
     major changes in patronage or revenues short of inventing 
     some radical new way to conduct the business of passenger 
     railroading.
       It appears that Amtrak may be caught in a sort of circular 
     argument. Without further capital investment, Amtrak will be 
     unable to enter new markets and compete for new business. 
     However, Amtrak has never had the capital to do this, and has 
     never done it. Perhaps Amtrak's boldest venture was in taking 
     over the ``Auto Train'' service in 1983. However, this 
     service (which was operated for nearly a decade, at a profit, 
     by Auto Train) is now one of the largest loss-makers among 
     Amtrak trains.\4\ Further, its loss per passenger has 
     increased rapidly in recent years. Prospects for changing 
     this trend do not appear bright.
       The cumulative result of 26 years of investment in Amtrak 
     has been, essentially, stability. Amtrak's market share has 
     fallen, ridership is stable at a time when air travel and 
     auto travel are both increasing much faster than population 
     growth, and capital funding is insufficient even to keep pace 
     with accumulated depreciation. A continuation of the current 
     state of affairs would appear to guarantee eventual 
     liquidation of Amtrak, not financial self-sufficiency.


                  IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

     A. Conclusion
       Amtrak ridership has shown no clear trend for nearly 20 
     years after increasing from 1971 through 1979. It is not 
     clear that future increases may be excepted.
       Amtrak's rail/air market share has declined from about 8% 
     to only 5.5% over the same period.
       Adjusted for inflation, revenues from passenger service has 
     been flat for many years. Only non-passenger sources of 
     income have shown increases.
       The decline in subsidy is in large part the result of 
     accounting changes and of Amtrak's decision to post deficits 
     rather than surpluses.
       The ``glide path'' to financial self-sufficiency does not 
     appear realistic or feasible.
       Amtrak continues to need large infusions of capital, but no 
     more than stability has been achieved for the estimated $21 
     billion in government money spent during the 1971-1997 
     period.
       The future of Amtrak clearly lies in short-distance 
     corridors, where the losses are much smaller than for 
     intercity trains. However, with the exception of the NEC, 
     these corridors are owned by freight railroads, which at 
     present have no financial incentive to cooperate with 
     proposed increases in service.
       Of the many initiatives to improve Amtrak over the past 26 
     years, only the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project 
     appears to have had any lasting effect. As Amtrak notes, 
     market penetration in the NEC is the best in America for 
     Amtrak. Amtrak also notes that annual spending on track 
     maintenance is far below levels at New Jersey Transit and 
     other neighboring properties. This is largely a result of the 
     heavy investments made between 1977 and 1985. However, track 
     components installed during those years will eventually 
     require renewal, and additional capital funding.
     B. Recommendations
       It is almost certainly counterproductive to attempt to 
     continue Amtrak as a national passenger system. A public 
     policy argument may be made for the importance of the NEC. It 
     is very difficult to credibly argue for the essentially of a 
     tri-weekly train serving Arizona and New Mexico.
       The Northeast Corridor provides some potential for 
     privatization, a lease/purchase arrangement, or some other 
     means for generating additional investment capital.
       Other local services may be supported by individual states, 
     with the Federal role confined, perhaps, to dictating 
     standards that would ensure compatible equipment types.


                               FOOTNOTES

     \1\ ``Issues Associated With a Possible Liquidation of 
     Amtrak.'' United States General Accounting Office, March 
     1998.
     \2\ ``FY 1999 Amtrak Legislative Report and Federal Grant 
     Requests'', Amtrak, February 1998.
     \3\ Statistics are from the Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1981 
     Edition (Association of American Railroads), Amtrak's 1988 
     annual report, and Amtrak's Legislative Report, 1997.
     \4\ The GAO report, Financial Performance of Amtrak's Routes, 
     shows a calculated loss of $118 per passenger for the Auto 
     Train, one of the highest among all routes.
                                  ____



                                    The University of Calgary,

                                    Calgary, Canada, May 30, 1998.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related 
         Agencies, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in reply to your letter 
     of April 28, requesting my perspective on Amtrak's long term 
     viability. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my thoughts 
     on this matter and commend your initiative in reaching out 
     ``beyond the Beltway'' for input into your committee's 
     deliberations. In order to place my thoughts on Amtrak's 
     future in some context, I would like to say a few words about 
     my own exposure to, and experience, with America's national 
     passenger railroad.
       I have had the opportunity to observe Amtrak closely 
     through twenty-two years of using its services, of advocating 
     for their improvement as a board member of the National 
     Association of Railroad Passengers from 1981 to 1991, and of 
     focusing my attention as a policy researcher on its 
     development. The enclosed resume lists my publications in 
     transportation policy, a number of which relate directly on 
     Amtrak. These have appeared in journals ranging from 
     Scientific American to The Journal of Policy Analysis and 
     Management. I would be happy to furnish copies of any of 
     these publications, if you would like to add them to the 
     Subcommittee's reference collection.
       The material that you forwarded from your hearing on 
     Amtrak, along with other documents from the FRA, GAO, and 
     Amtrak itself suggests that some aspects of Amtrak's 
     operations and performance have changed considerably over the 
     last few years and others have not. I would like to focus on 
     the relationship between what has changed about Amtrak and 
     what has not changed as my own contribution to your 
     committee's deliberations. I believe that this, arguably 
     idiosyncratic, measure offers important clues to Amtrak's 
     long term viability.
       I will not go into great detail on the changes in Amtrak's 
     operations and performance that have occurred over the last 
     five years since they are well documented in your committee's 
     record and will likely be analyzed with greater expertise and 
     firsthand experience by others writing to you. From my 
     perspective, changing both the internal workings of the 
     corporation (through decentralization into Strategic Business 
     Units) and the external terms by which it is regulated 
     (Amtrak Reform & Accountability Act) and subsidized (Taxpayer 
     Relief Act) have been important steps forward toward a future 
     in which passenger trains play a more productive role in 
     America's intercity transportation, they do not in themselves 
     guarantee Amtrak's viability.
       The Amtrak Reform & Accountability Act creates substantial 
     opportunities for enhancing productivity and real, but more 
     limited, chances for raising revenues. The magnitude of these 
     changes depends on implementing many initiatives that are 
     only just beginning. My guess is that the full impact of 
     these changes will become apparent in three to five years. 
     Furthermore, that impact will depend on the interaction of 
     re-engineered operations with renewed investment in Amtrak's 
     physical plant. Such reinvestment occurring through the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act will certainly pay dividends through this 
     period, estimated by Amtrak at $180 million in additional 
     revenue. This result is impressive, but is not sufficient to 
     fund the cost of operating a national system of intercity 
     passenger trains, even a more efficient and effective one. In 
     my view, what has changed at Amtrak, and around its 
     legislation and finances, takes the company toward viability, 
     but not all the way there.
       This is why I would suggest that what has not changed about 
     the way passenger trains fit into America's transportation 
     system remains a crucial component of Amtrak's long term 
     viability. Despite the sometimes heroic efforts of 
     individuals (both Amtrak executives and legislators) to 
     remedy to corporation's dysfunctional place in America's 
     transport sector, the fact remains that the intercity 
     passenger train remains an institutional orphan among U.S. 
     transportation modes. Indeed, the recent changes launched by 
     legislative reform are themselves the product of compromises 
     that fell short of bringing Amtrak ``inside the tent'' of the 
     planning and finance process that now applies to all other 
     transport modes. Instead of dedicating federal transportation 
     revenues

[[Page H6719]]

     to intercity passengers rail in the same way that they are 
     spent on aviation, highways, and transit, the Taxpayer Relief 
     Act created a funding alternative by fiscal sleight of hand. 
     Without detracting from the importance of these funds and the 
     achievement of legislators who enacted this compromise, such 
     fiscal gimmickry will not make Amtrak viable over the long 
     run.
       Making it possible for states to spend federal 
     transportation dollars on intercity rail projects under the 
     same administrative, economic, and political terms as they do 
     for airports, highways, or urban transit holds the key to 
     Amtrak's long run viability. Although such a reform lies well 
     beyond the jurisdiction of your subcommittee, I remain 
     optimistic that the current round of initiatives will make it 
     easier to build the consensus that passenger trains belongs 
     on the same policymaking agenda as America's other 
     transportations modes. This will occur as Amtrak's enhanced 
     services demonstrate the economic and social contribution 
     that passenger trains could make across America, a 
     contribution that can be maximized by managing passenger 
     trains with the same framework as other transport modes. In 
     this way, today's reform process is a necessary step on the 
     way to long run viability for Amtrak, and I would encourage 
     you and your colleagues to facilitate the process by 
     appropriating the funds that have been requested by the 
     Administration and Amtrak. Along with the TRA capital 
     funding, they represent an essential down payment on the 
     future American transportation system--a future in which the 
     prohibition on spending certain kinds of public revenue for 
     intercity passenger trains will eventually come to appear as 
     arbitrary and inappropriate as the 18th Amendment's 
     prohibition on the manufacture, sale and transportation of 
     liquor.
       The administrative and fiscal integration of passenger 
     trains into America's intercity transportation system will 
     require significant additional reforms to the way Amtrak does 
     business. My colleague James Dunn and I sketched out some 
     possible scenarios of how such a transformation would play 
     out in our contribution to Transportation Research Circular 
     number 484, ``National Conference on Critical Issues for the 
     Future of Intercity Passenger Rail.'' Our article is entitled 
     ``Institutional Challenges: Making Rail Revitalization 
     Happen.'' You may find this analysis of interest.
       I wish your subcommittee well in its deliberations.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Anthony Perl,

                                           Director, Research Unit
     for Public Policy Studies.
                                  ____

                                            University of Illinois


                                                   at Chicago,

                                       Chicago, IL, July 13, 1998.
     To: The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
         Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     From: Anthony M. Pagano, Ph.D., Associate Professor of 
         Management.
     Re Amtrak's Long Term Future Financial Viability
       I have carefully reviewed the testimony given before your 
     Subcommittee this past spring concerning Amtrak's 
     appropriations request and the analysis of Amtrak's financial 
     condition by the GAO. I agree completely with the GAO 
     analysis. I do not believe that Amtrak is on a path to 
     achieve financial independence. On the contrary, the more 
     liberal definitions of capital costs have allowed Amtrak to 
     use capital funds for previously classified operating 
     purposes. The long term impact of these decisions on Amtrak's 
     future capital needs have yet to be determined.
       The financial problems experienced by Amtrak are 
     symptomatic of a larger problem when government attempts to 
     act as a producer of goods and services. Government is an 
     inappropriate mechanism to provide long distance rail 
     passenger services. As long as government continues to 
     subsidize and operate Amtrak, there will always be deficits. 
     This is why former socialist and communist countries are in 
     the process of transferring their State Owned Enterprises 
     (SOE's) to the free market. It is time that the federal 
     government does the same with Amtrak.


                   privatization successes in transit

       Privatization of mass transit operations have taken place 
     in many cities across the United States and around the world. 
     These successes are indicative of the possible positive 
     impacts that privatization of Amtrak can have. For example: 
     \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ For further information, see Pagano, Anthony M, An 
     Analysis of Proposed CTA Service Cuts: New Public Sector 
     Management Alternatives, Metropolitan Transportation 
     Association, Oak Brook, IL, May 1997, and Cox, Wendell, and 
     Love, Jean, Rescuing Transit in Chicago, Redirecting CTA to 
     Serve Customers First, Metropolitan Transportation 
     Association, Oak Brook, IL, March, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Los Angeles Contracted out bus service to private operators 
     resulting in a 60% reduction of the costs of providing 
     service. Quality of service also has risen with the use of 
     private contractors.
       In Colorado, state legislation required Denver to contract 
     out 20 percent of its transit service to private operators. 
     This has resulted in a long term savings of 31.0 percent.
       San Diego Contracted out 38 percent of its service with an 
     average cost savings of 30 percent.
       The city of Las Vegas contracts out its entire system. 
     Costs per vehicle hour dropped by 33.3 percent.
       Foothills Transit outside Los Angeles Contracts out its 
     entire system to private operators. Its ridership has risen 
     by over 50 percent, it has added 57 percent more service, its 
     operating costs have fallen by 31 percent and its fares are 
     37 percent lower.
       London, which operates the world's largest bus system, has 
     privatized over half of its system. Services have expanded by 
     29 percent and operating costs have fallen by 30 percent.
       Stockholm runs a 2,000 bus system with 900 rail cars. It 
     contracts out two thirds of its bus service and all rail 
     service. Operating costs have fallen 17 percent while service 
     has been increased by 13 percent.
       Metra, the commuter rail division of the RTA in the Chicago 
     metropolitan area, contracts out most of its service to the 
     freight railroads. Metra is the only public transit service 
     board in the Chicago area to consistently experience 
     ridership increases. By contrast, CTA ridership has declined 
     by 40% over the last 10 years.


                new approach to public sector management

       Amtrak today represents the old style public sector 
     management that relies on service cuts and increased public 
     sector subsidy. A new approach to public sector management is 
     sweeping the world. The new approach to public sector 
     management recognizes the inherent inefficiencies in public 
     sector monopoly provision of services. It also recognizes 
     that the public sector must rely to a greater extent on 
     the competitive forces of the free market to provide 
     services. Only through a competitive marketplace will the 
     incentives to be efficient, to provide high levels of 
     customer service, to give taxpayers a fair return be 
     effective. This new management approach relies heavily on 
     the private sector to provide services. Privatization can 
     be achieved through competitive contracting of rail 
     services, private sector management of entire systems, or 
     outright sale of services to the private sector.
       The new public sector management is not just confined to 
     transit. China, Russia, many of the former Eastern Bloc 
     countries and many South American countries are reforming and 
     privatizing their SOE's. From transit to railroads to steel 
     to agriculture, the new public sector management is sweeping 
     the world.


                      Approaches to privatization

       There are several approaches to privatization that can 
     yield benefits in terms of reduced government subsidy, 
     improved efficiency of operations and increased ridership.
       Asset Sales--Asset sales involve selling the assets to the 
     private sector, which then would be charged with providing 
     the service. Asset sales generally involve three types. One 
     is Citizen Share-Purchase in which citizens can purchase 
     shares of stock in the privatized enterprise through an 
     initial public offering. This is what was done with CONRAIL 
     with great success. A second approach is Voucher 
     Privatization where there is universal distribution of stock 
     to all citizens. An option is to provide additional stock to 
     existing employees. Voucher privatization has been used in 
     South America, Canada, the Czech Republic and other places. A 
     third option is to sell the assets to another enterprise.
       An asset sale could be very successful with the Northeast 
     Corridor SBU. This service is currently running a slight 
     profit according the GAO, so that an asset sale could be very 
     successful. It would signal that government is getting out of 
     the railroad business entirely in this part of the country.
       Competitive Contracting. With competitive contracting, the 
     ownership of the enterprise is retained by the government. 
     The actual production is done by the private sector under 
     contract with the government enterprise. Competitive 
     contracting harnesses the power of the marketplace to more 
     efficiently deliver services. A variation on competitive 
     contracting is to contract out the entire operation to one 
     firm which would then manage the enterprise for the 
     government.
       Competitive contracting could be utilized in the rest of 
     the AMTRAK system, where break-even operations seem most 
     elusive. Government would subsidize services and oversee 
     route planning, fares and other strategic matters. New style 
     public sector management approaches could be utilized to 
     provide incentives for private sector contractors to increase 
     service quality and ridership. Eventually, as ridership and 
     operating ratios improve, much of this service could be spun 
     off to the private sector in an asset sale as well.
       Whichever approach is utilized, it imperative that the 
     federal government begin to move away from the never ending 
     subsidies of AMTRAK and embrace a fundamental change in the 
     way rail passenger service is provided in the United States. 
     Without such structural changes, AMTRAK deficits will be a 
     continuing feature of the federal budget well into the next 
     millennium and beyond.
                                  ____

  



                            U.S. Department of Transportation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 28, 1998.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for providing the Office of 
     the Inspector General with the opportunity to provide input 
     on Amtrak's financial future.

[[Page H6720]]

       The issues you asked us to address concerning Amtrak's 
     long-term viability are similar to those raised in November 
     1997, when Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and 
     Accountability Act. In the Act, Congress asked the Secretary 
     of Transportation to contract for an independent assessment 
     of Amtrak's financial needs through Fiscal Year 2002. I am 
     pleased to inform the Committee that following a competitive 
     bid process and upon appropriation of funds in the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, this contract was awarded on 
     May 5, 1998. The Office of Inspector General is tasked with 
     overseeing this contract, and we believe that when this 
     assessment is completed in November 1998, we will be in a 
     better position to comment on Amtrak's long-term viability. 
     In the interim, we expect to have significant, preliminary 
     results in August that we will share with you and your staff.
       We believe the results of this assessment will provide the 
     most accurate indication of Amtrak's future viability and 
     financial requirements. However, in addressing the question 
     of Amtrak's future viability, it may be advisable for 
     Congress to consider providing more specific guidance on what 
     the term ``viability'' actually means. When Congress mandated 
     that Amtrak eliminate its need for operating assistance, the 
     structure of Amtrak's Federal funding assistance was very 
     different than what is currently being proposed. Prior to the 
     FY 1999 budget request, Amtrak received a separate capital 
     and operating subsidy. This year, however, Amtrak is 
     requesting only capital assistance, with the flexibility 
     provided through the ``transit definition'' of capital, to 
     use these funds for costs traditionally considered operating 
     costs. While technically, Amtrak will not receive an 
     operating subsidy, this more flexible definition of capital 
     will in effect, allow Amtrak to extract operating assistance 
     from its capital appropriation. It is important to note that 
     Amtrak has never anticipated eliminating its need for a 
     Federal capital subsidy. As such, in light of the proposed 
     change in the definition of capital, Congress may want to 
     consider providing more specific guidance on how viability--
     or operating self-sufficiency--will be measured.
       If I can answer any questions or be of further assistance, 
     please contact me on 366-1959, or Raymond J. DeCarli, Deputy 
     Inspector General, on 366-6767.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. DeCarli,
                         (For Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General).
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to recognize and thank those assciate staff 
members who supported the Members of this House in the preparation and 
passage of the fiscal year 1999 Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 4328: David Whitestone of my office, Monica 
Vegas Kladakis of Majority Whip DeLay's office, Connie Veillette of Mr. 
Regula's office, Mike Robinson of Mr. Rogers' office, Eric Mondero of 
Mr. Packard's office, Todd Rich of Mr. Callahan's office, Joe Cramer of 
Mr. Tiahrt's office, Mark Zelden of Mr. Aderholt's office, Paul Cambon 
of Chairman Livingston's office, Marjorie Duske of Mr. Sabo's office, 
Albert Jacquez and Nancy Alcalde of Mr. Torres' office, David Oliveira 
of Mr. Olver's office, Blake Gable of Mr. Pastor's office, Dana Gresham 
of Mr. Cramer's office, and Paul Carver of Mr. Obey's office.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) on a good bill. It is a bill that deserves to be passed this 
evening. There are two or three rough spots that have to be worked out, 
in particular the Coast Guard clearly needs some additional money, but 
this is a good bill.
  Let me in specific thank the staff that has worked very hard on this 
bill. From the minority staff Cheryl Smith and Marjorie Duske, the 
majority staff, John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda Muir 
and David Whitestone. The committee, with their aid, has produced a 
very good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the evening is late. I am ready to vote, but I think we 
may have a couple of amendments and a couple of colloquies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  (Mr. OBERSTAR addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) just to one moment go back to the statement on the Coast 
Guard. I hope that he will do everything he said here today to try to 
add funding.
  Clearly, the R&D function is woefully underfunded. And I would also 
hope that we would give the Coast Guard some latitude within its budget 
to move funds around as well in this kind of very tight situation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. If 
there is any additional allocation for Defense, which many people 
believe there will be, we will make every effort to see that the Coast 
Guard participates in that and meet the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  In any given year, the Coast Guard saves thousands of lives, assists 
tens of thousands of people, and prevents millions of dollars of 
property damage.
  Their fleet of 250 cutters, 225 aircraft and over 2,000 small rescue 
and utility craft are, as their motto proclaims, ``always ready, always 
there.''
  But instead of preparing the Coast Guard for the twenty-first 
century, this bill cuts crucial funding for research and development by 
$7 million below FY 98 and $6.3 million below the request.
  Research and development is not an esoteric exercise. This work 
contributes directly to the work that Coast Guard personnel perform in 
the field every day.
  This budget will stop research on:


                       Improved Search and Rescue

  Through the R&D program, the Coast Guard has developed a system using 
Global Positioning System (GPS) to dramatically improve response time 
during search and rescue missions.
  When a boat capsizes in the frigid Atlantic or in Alaska or in the 
rough currents off Hawaii and California, more rapid response means the 
difference between life and death.


                       Fire Prevention and Safety

  The R&D program conducts full-scale fire tests aboard actual ships, 
making this a unique laboratory for exploring how fire reacts on ships. 
This research translates directly into improved safety.
  The recent fire aboard the Ecstasy cruise ship--which had over 2,000 
people onboard--demonstrates the importance of developing quick 
responses to these catastrophes.
  The Coast Guard is also conducting research to improve fire safety on 
the Coast Guard cutters. This directly contributes to the safety of the 
men and women in uniform on those ships.


                             Other Programs

  Improvements in aid to navigation, vessel management systems, even 
drug interdiction are all the result of the R&D program. Make no 
mistake about it--this cut will compromise the safety of the American 
people and the men and women in the Coast Guard.
  The Coast Guard is the guardian of our coastline. They risk their 
lives everyday to protect us. We should be helping, not hindering their 
mission.
  Research and development leads to advancements that improve the Coast 
Guard's everyday activities. A cut of this magnitude will seriously 
impair the Coast Guard's ability to perform its duties.
  Let's help the Coast Guard do what they do best--protecting our 
waters and saving lives.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the 
chairman of the subcommittee and my friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of the representatives of the only region in 
the country with two airports, governed by the High Density Rule, 
LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy. Since last October, the Secretary of 
Transportation has granted 30 slot exemptions to the High Density Rule 
at LaGuardia with little, if any, examination of the impacts on 
aviation safety, flight delays, and aircraft noise that are occurring 
from this increased traffic.
  Numerous communities in the New York metropolitan area are very 
concerned about the situation, and I would like to ask for the 
gentleman's assistance in working with me and other Members from New 
York in having the FAA examine these potential adverse impacts.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to have a study done of the average flight 
delays at the airport, whether the additional flights are making it 
more difficult for air traffic controllers in manage the

[[Page H6721]]

region's air traffic, and if there is an appreciable increase in 
aircraft noise. This is a very serious issue, both for the traveling 
public and the residents on the ground.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) and I understand the very, very legitimate concerns of the 
residents of New York about the increased air traffic and I will do 
everything I can to work with the gentlewoman and the FAA administrator 
to guarantee that this report is underway as soon as possible.

                              {time}  2310

  If the gentlewoman needs to, we can have a joint meeting with the FAA 
administrator.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to working with 
him.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  Southwest Florida is one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. 
Consequently, the airport serving this area, Southwest Florida 
International Airport, has been operating above capacity for some time. 
Anybody who has been there knows that. In fact, Southwest Florida 
International Airport has experienced an average annual growth of 9.2 
percent during the past 10 years.
  Because of this growth, the airport has begun an expansion project 
called Project Millennium which would include construction of a new 
terminal and runway. Project Millennium is the State of Florida's 
number one funded airport project, and it has also received 
discretionary funds from the FAA.
  Southwest Florida International Airport has requested a letter of 
intent from the FAA to ensure long-term commitment to Project 
Millennium. In light of our commitment to fiscal responsibility, I am 
pleased to report that the airport has reduced the Federal share of the 
project to 24 percent of the total cost.
  I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to consider 
including language in the transportation appropriations conference 
report expressing congressional support for Southwest Florida 
International Airport's request for a letter of intent. I understand 
that Senator Mack and Senator Shelby of the other body have reached a 
similar agreement regarding the inclusion of this provision in the 
conference report.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for making 
me aware of the very intense growth of the Southwest Florida area and 
the planned expansion of the Southwest Florida International Airport. 
Because of its location, it is a wonderful place to visit, I 
understand, particularly in the winter, not always in the summer.
  The Southwest Florida International Airport is essential in 
maintaining Florida's balanced airport system. This project is worthy 
of a long-term commitment, a very long-term commitment by the FAA. I 
will do all I can to ensure the conference report on the transportation 
appropriation contains language to encourage the FAA to grant Southwest 
Florida International Airport's request for a letter of intent.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his 
commitment and support of Southwest Florida International Airport and 
invite him to participate in its use at any time during the year. It is 
a marvelous place.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage with the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Transportation in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, in an effort to construct an additional crossing of the 
Ocmulgee River through the City of Macon, Georgia, Federal, State and 
local officials have been working together for over 20 years to extend 
the Eisenhower Parkway, but to no avail. This additional crossing will 
improve access to and for hospitals, firefighting, and other public 
safety organizations, as well as improve the circulation of traffic 
into and through Macon, aiding the economic revitalization of the 
community and the creation of even more jobs. In addition to the 
economic impact and easing Macon's traffic problems, this project could 
be used to link middle Georgia with a multi-lane Statewide corridor 
connecting Macon with the cities of Augusta and Columbus.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the committee appreciates the importance of 
the Eisenhower Parkway extension to the gentleman's district in the 
State of Georgia and recognizes the commitment Congress has made in the 
past with funding for the project.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, currently the project in Macon is 
virtually at a standstill as a result of bureaucratic delays, incurring 
additional costs to the taxpayer because of governmental agencies' 
inability to complete the approval process.
  Mr. Chairman, will the committee agree that unnecessary delays can 
result in additional costs that could be avoided if project approvals 
were completed in a timely manner.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman is correct. The committee's desire is for the projects to 
move forward consistent with all applicable rules and regulations in a 
timely and efficient manner, thereby avoiding additional costs 
associated with unsubstantiated delays.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this project in Macon and 
Bibb County, Georgia could serve as a model of interagency cooperation. 
As the gentleman is aware, Congress recently enacted legislation 
directing the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a 
coordinated environmental review process whereby all reviews will be 
done concurrently rather than sequentially; thus, moving the process 
along in an expedient manner under the national Environmental Review 
Act.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, upon 
forwarding all essential documents to the appropriate Federal agencies 
by the State and local offices, the committee expects the Federal 
Highway Administration and other Federal resource agencies to 
streamline and expedite the review for all projects, including this 
particular one, consistent with NEPA.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
clarification of this matter, and I thank the gentleman for the 
leadership he provides to this committee.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the honorable Member for yielding me 
the time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 4328. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, and every other member of 
this Subcommittee on Transportation for this excellent bill.
  On September 12 of this year in my district, a crowd of 25,000 people 
is expected to attend the grand opening celebration of the Westside 
Light Rail project. I am pleased that this bill before the House 
includes the $25.7 million for this project, an amount equal to the 
full funding grant agreement.
  Westside Light Rail will be the crown jewel of Oregon's 
transportation system, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their help in this project.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4328, FY 99 
Transportation Appropriations. I want to thank Mr. Wolf, Mr. Sabo, and 
every member of the Transportation Subcommittee for producing an 
excellent bill. I know the passage of the TEA-21 bill made the 
Subcommittee's work more difficult than usual, and I wanted to publicly 
acknowledge their efforts.
  On September 12th of this year, in my district, a crowd of over 
25,000 people is expected to attend the Grand Opening Celebration of 
the Westside Light Rail project. When I was elected to represent 
Oregon's First District in 1992, one of my top priorities was to

[[Page H6722]]

ensure that the Westside Project was completed on time. I am pleased 
that the bill before the House today includes $25.7 million for this 
project, an amount equal to the full funding grant agreement.
  As many people know, the Westside Light Rail project is a national 
model of the benefits of effective land-use planning. It is also the 
first transit system in North America to use low-floor cars which are 
fully ADA accessible, and I had the fortune of driving one of these new 
vehicles earlier this summer. Because I am retiring at the end of this 
Congress, it is reassuring to know that H.R. 4328 will allow the 
Westside Light Rail project to open on time in September.
  I also want to thank the Chairman for two additional items in H.R. 
4328. First, the bill fully funds a bus authorization that will help 
our local transit agency upgrade new bus lines that serve Portland's 
suburbs, helping them operate efficiently with the new Westside Light 
Rail line. In addition, at my request, the Subcommittee including 
language on the South-North Project which is the next building block in 
our region's long-term transportation plan.
  I want to thank Mr. Wolf, Mr. Sabo, and the entire Subcommittee for 
their unwavering and generous support for this project over the past 
six years. The citizens of my entire district owe this Subcommittee a 
tremendous debt of gratitude. It has been an honor to work with the 
Subcommittee on these issues, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4328.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  As a member of the committee that authorizes U.S. Coast Guard 
operations, I am deeply concerned by the advanced age of the Coast 
Guard's vessels, aircraft and technology. This problem is beginning to 
hamper the Coast Guard's ability to conduct vital antidrug operations.
  As the gentleman well knows, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is 
America's first line of defense on the high seas against drug lords and 
cartels that are bent on putting their deadly products in the hands of 
our Nation's children. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure 
that the Coast Guard is equipped with the most advanced equipment to 
perform their counterdrug mission effectively.
  The Coast Guard has a modernization program called the Deepwater 
Capabilities Replacement project, which would overhaul all the Coast 
Guard's assets. Deepwater represents the 21st century Coast Guard.
  The Clinton administration sought to delay Deepwater through the 
establishment of a Presidential Advisory Council on Coast Guard roles 
and missions. I would like to thank the chairman for seeing through 
this delaying tactic and preventing this unnecessary and expensive 
commission from going forward.
  Instead, this bill provides for a smaller panel of former Coast Guard 
commandants and other officials not to exceed $1 million.
  My question, Mr. Chairman, relates to this provision. Can I get an 
assurance from the gentleman that the establishment and activities of 
the blue ribbon panel will not in any way prevent the Coast Guard's 
Deepwater modernization program from going forward?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the administration's roles and missions 
Presidential Advisory Council would have come at a great cost to the 
Coast Guard's operating budget. Despite the announcement of this 
commission several months ago, the administration has not appointed 
this council.
  The gentleman is correct. In disapproving the administration's plan 
and setting up in its place the blue ribbon panel contained in the 
bill, it is our intention that the Coast Guard's modernization effort, 
Deepwater, should not be held up pending the result of this panel.
  There is nothing in the bill or report which would indicate these two 
efforts should be linked. We expect Deepwater to proceed independently 
of the blue ribbon panel. By having the former commandants look at 
this, there will be some historical factors, because much of what the 
Coast Guard has is so old that the more attention we can bring to it, I 
think the better it is for the Coast Guard, for search and rescue, drug 
interdiction and everything else.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, Operation Respond is a nonprofit public-private 
partnership between railroads, motor carriers and America's emergency 
responders. Operation Respond allows emergency responders to determine 
whether or not there is hazardous material at an accident site and to 
get the information that they need to safely handle hazardous materials 
incidents. The true benefit of the Operation Respond partnership is 
that it saves minutes and often hours in obtaining critical action 
information and it brings an extra dimension to surface transportation 
safety. The Operation Respond Institute was created in 1992 as a 
cooperative effort between the Federal Railroad Administration and the 
Port Terminal Railroad of Houston, Texas. It is jointly funded by the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, rail and motor carriers, and the 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
  This is a critical time, Mr. Chairman, for the Operation Respond 
program. All of the major railroads now participate, and efforts are 
under way to expand the program in the motor carrier industry. If 
adequately funded, Operation Respond will expand its protection of 
emergency personnel and the public throughout the Nation.
  Last year, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1998 under your leadership provided $1 million under the Federal 
highway program and $103,000 under the Federal Railroad Administration 
for Operation Respond. Are there any funds, Mr. Chairman, for this 
important program in the Transportation appropriations bill?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, $103,000 has been appropriated for Operation 
Respond under the Federal Railroad Administration. No other funds have 
been appropriated.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, by matching the funding for Operation 
Respond to last year's levels, we can help this very important program 
achieve a realistic goal of expanding installations to an estimated 
2,000 Emergency Respond dispatch centers across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, emergency responders, fire, police and medical 
personnel, need help as never before in gauging the correct response to 
transportation incidents. As we know too well from the recent tragic 
incident in the Capitol, it is really those very first few critical 
minutes that the first responders must take actions to accurately 
assess the situation, safeguard lives and property and prepare the 
scene for arriving fire and medical responders. Operation Respond is a 
program that works, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. You are so convincing, I just agree with you that this is a 
worthwhile program, and I will consider ways in which to continue to 
fund Operation Respond.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I feel very passionately about the 
importance of the program as the gentleman can tell.
  Mr. WOLF. I can tell.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I urge my colleagues to support the Transportation 
appropriations bill, and I look forward to working with the gentleman 
maybe even in conference to do more with it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to thank the committee and the chairman for their efforts to 
increase the amount of money put into the Coast Guard budget. I 
especially want to thank the committee in their endeavors to try to 
find moneys to put into and increase the interdiction budget for the 
Coast Guard. The administration has lacked boldness and intensity in 
its effort to engage the problem of drug interdiction into this 
country. Mr. Chairman, I do think we need to continue to look for 
further resources. You have mentioned some examples a little bit 
earlier. I would also

[[Page H6723]]

like to continue to pursue further funds in the conference committee. 
The interdiction that the Coast Guard provides for this country, I 
think, is very misunderstood by most Americans and many Members of 
Congress. We have a finite border in the United States. It is not 
infinite. With the collaborative efforts of the Coast Guard, Customs, 
DEA, military services and other agencies, it is possible, we have seen 
plans time and time again, we have seen examples of when these plans 
are put into effect that we could cut, we could interdict 80 percent of 
the drugs coming in by sea by the year 2007. It is possible. But we 
need to generate the resources in a collaborative fashion to make these 
predictions come true and they can come true.
  I as well as all of us here believe in many types of drug treatment, 
public and private. We believe in educational programs. I even believe 
in the graphic TV commercials that are put on television. We must do 
everything we can to reduce drug use and drugs coming into this 
country. It is possible if we work together to make this happen. I 
applaud the committee and their efforts to do so.
  I have one other comment in this bill, Mr. Chairman. There is some 
money taken from the fisheries program which helped bump up the money 
in the interdiction end of the Coast Guard process. I have a problem 
with that. We need more money in the interdiction program, that is 
true, but we have 2.25 million square miles of coastal waters that the 
Coast Guard needs to enforce our fisheries regulations. What do they 
do? They have search and rescue for fishermen, they provide enforcement 
so that many countries, mostly foreign, cannot use these high sea drift 
nets which are 25 miles long and longer. We protect the billions of 
dollars in the industry that this country depends upon. Fisheries is an 
important part of this program. It is an important part of this 
country. The Coast Guard not only enforces the safety aspect of this 
and saves people's lives at sea but they stop dead in their tracks 
foreign fishing vessels from encroaching on our waters.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for his effort in this. The Coast Guard is one of those unseen entities 
that we need to continue to encourage, and I look forward to working 
with him.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree. We want to crack down on 
poaching of Forrest Gump in the gulf and people are doing that.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Absolutely.
  Mr. WOLF. If we do have any other allocations which I hope we will at 
the end for defense, we plan on asking for some of that so we can beef 
up the Coast Guard in many of these areas, including additional funding 
in the area of drug interdiction.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia in a colloquy.
  Is it the chairman's understanding that under current law, the 
Secretary of Transportation may not close a Coast Guard boat station or 
subunit unless the Secretary determines the remaining search and rescue 
capabilities can continue to maintain the safety of the public in that 
area?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. The answer to that question is yes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, is it the chairman's understanding that a 
Coast Guard station or subunit cannot be closed unless the Secretary 
determines the Coast Guard search and rescue standards related to 
search and rescue times are met?
  Mr. WOLF. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, is it the chairman's understanding that under 
current law if the Coast Guard plans on closing a station, the Coast 
Guard must provide an opportunity for public comment and for public 
meetings in the area of the station with regard to the decision to 
close the station or subunit?
  Mr. WOLF. The answer is yes.
  Mr. CAMP. Is it the chairman's understanding that the Coast Guard has 
no immediate plans to close any boat stations?
  Mr. WOLF. Somehow I want to say no, but the answer is yes.
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for working so 
diligently on behalf of our Nation's infrastructure needs and 
clarifying these questions.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendments printed in House Report 105-651 
are adopted and the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Secretary, $1,623,800.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Deputy Secretary, $585,000.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $8,895,000.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Policy, $2,667,200.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, $7,002,200: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     there may be credited to this appropriation up to $1,000,000 
     in funds received in user fees.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs, $6,069,300, including not 
     to exceed $40,000 for allocation within the Department for 
     official reception and representation expenses as the 
     Secretary may determine.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs, $1,672,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration, $19,147,100.

                        Office of Public Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, 
     $1,377,600.

                         Executive Secretariat

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Secretariat, 
     $1,046,900.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

       For necessary expenses of the Board of Contract Appeals, 
     $675,500.

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Small and 
     Disadvantaged Business Utilization, $839,200.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intelligence and 
     Security, $961,100.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $4,400,000.

                        Office of Intermodalism

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intermodalism, 
     $1,018,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $6,966,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems

[[Page H6724]]

     development, and development activities, to remain available 
     until expended, $3,035,000.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to 
     exceed $109,124,000, shall be paid from appropriations made 
     available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That 
     such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to 
     entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the above limitation on operating expenses 
     shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That 
     no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the 
     Department shall be transferred to the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center without the approval of the 
     agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no 
     assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,500,000, as authorized by 
     49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $13,775,000. In addition, for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $2,900,000, of which $2,635,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for 
     business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

       For necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council 
     authorized under section 203 of Public Law 105-134, $450,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2000.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $2,700,000,000, of which not to exceed $4,000,000 
     shall be for the establishment and operating costs of a 
     Caribbean international support tender, to train and support 
     foreign coast guards in the Caribbean region; of which 
     $300,000,000 shall be available for defense-related 
     activities; and of which $25,000,000 shall be derived from 
     the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund: Provided, That the number 
     of aircraft on hand at any one time shall not exceed 212, 
     exclusive of aircraft and parts stored to meet future 
     attrition: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this or any other Act shall be available for 
     pay or administrative expenses in connection with shipping 
     commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C. 
     12109, except to the extent fees are collected from yacht 
     owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian 
     employment levels for the purpose of complying with Executive 
     Order No. 12839: Provided further, That up to $615,000 in 
     user fees collected pursuant to section 1111 of Public Law 
     104-324 shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting 
     collections in fiscal year 1999: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Coast 
     Guard to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that 
     would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically 
     authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $389,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which 
     $227,913,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate 
     or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003; $39,400,000 shall 
     be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 2001; 
     $30,314,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001; $42,923,000 shall be 
     available for shore facilities and aids to navigation 
     facilities, to remain available until September 30, 2001; and 
     $48,450,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That funds received from the 
     sale of HU-25 aircraft shall be credited to this 
     appropriation for the purpose of acquiring new aircraft and 
     increasing aviation capacity: Provided further, That the 
     Commandant may dispose of surplus real property by sale or 
     lease and the proceeds shall be credited to this 
     appropriation, of which not more than $3,000,000 shall be 
     credited as offsetting collections to this account, to be 
     available for the purposes of this account: Provided further, 
     That the amount herein appropriated from the General Fund 
     shall be reduced by such amount: Provided further, That any 
     proceeds from the sale or lease of Coast Guard surplus real 
     property in excess of $3,000,000 shall be retained and remain 
     available until expended, but shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 1999.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $12,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, and for 
     payments for medical care of retired personnel and their 
     dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. 
     ch. 55), $684,000,000.

                            Reserve Training


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $69,000,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $20,000,000 of funds made available under 
     this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating 
     expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast 
     Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast 
     Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so 
     charged during fiscal year 1997.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $12,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities 
     and the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, and carrying out the provisions of 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code, 
     or other provisions of law authorizing the obligation of 
     funds for similar programs of airport and airway development 
     or improvement, lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only, in addition to amounts made available 
     by Public Law 104-264, $5,532,558,000, of which 
     $2,060,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be available for the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that would 
     promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized 
     by law after the date of enactment of this Act: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign 
     authorities, other public authorities, and private sources, 
     for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services, 
     including receipts for the maintenance and operation of air 
     navigation facilities, and for issuance, renewal or 
     modification of certificates, including airman, aircraft, and 
     repair station certificates, or for tests related thereto, or 
     for processing major repair or alteration forms: Provided 
     further, That funds may be used to enter into a grant 
     agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting organization to 
     assist in the development of aviation safety standards: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for new applicants for the second career training 
     program: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be available for paying premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 
     5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration employee 
     unless such employee actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the 
     contiguous

[[Page H6725]]

     United States: Provided further, That no more than 
     $28,600,000 of funds appropriated to the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in this Act may be used for activities 
     conducted by, or coordinated through, the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be used for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to enter into a multiyear lease 
     greater than three years in length or greater than 
     $100,000,000 in value unless such lease is specifically 
     authorized by the Congress and appropriations have been 
     provided to fully cover the Federal Government's contingent 
     liabilities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be 
     used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel who carry 
     out an essential air service program under section 41742 of 
     title 49, United States Code, from amounts not credited to 
     the account established under section 45303 of such title: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to sign a 
     lease for satellite services related to the global 
     positioning system (GPS) wide area augmentation system until 
     the administrator of the FAA certifies in writing to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that FAA has 
     conducted a lease versus buy analysis which indicates that 
     such lease will result in the lowest overall cost to the 
     agency.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or 
     purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental 
     facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including 
     initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; 
     engineering and service testing, including construction of 
     test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease 
     or grant; and construction and furnishing of quarters and 
     related accommodations for officers and employees of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration stationed at remote 
     localities where such accommodations are not available; and 
     the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds 
     available under this head; to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, $2,000,000,000, of which $1,749,350,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2001, and of which 
     $250,650,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
     navigation facilities: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act may be obligated for bulk explosive 
     detection systems until 30 days after the FAA administrator 
     certifies to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations, in writing, that the major air carriers 
     responsible for providing aircraft security at Category X 
     airports have agreed to: (a) begin assuming the operation and 
     maintenance costs of such machines beginning in fiscal year 
     1999; and (b) substantially increase the usage of such 
     machines above the level experienced as of April 1, 1998: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, up to $4,680,000 is to reimburse the sponsor of 
     Louisville Standiford Field in Kentucky for costs related to 
     acquisition and installation of an instrument landing system.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $145,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

        For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and for noise 
     compatibility planning and programs as authorized under 
     subchapter I of chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 
     of title 49, United States Code, and under other law 
     authorizing such obligations, $1,600,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the obligations for which are in excess of 
     $1,800,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for grants-in-aid for 
     airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs, notwithstanding section 47117(h) of 
     title 49, United States Code.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C. 
     48103 as amended, $5,000,000 are rescinded.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of 
     funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in 
     accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation 
     Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary 
     in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities 
     under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.

                Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for 
     activities under this heading during fiscal year 1999.

                 Administrative Services Franchise Fund

       None of the funds in this Act may be used for the FAA to 
     conduct, monitor, or otherwise continue operations of the 
     Administrative Services Franchise Fund in fiscal year 1999.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                Limitation on General Operating Expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $318,733,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That $52,530,000 
     shall be transferred to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration to carry out the functions and operations of 
     the office of motor carriers: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds in this Act may be used to carry out the functions 
     and operations of the office of motor carriers within the 
     Federal Highway Administration.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

       Necessary expenses for transportation research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $409,150,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration: 
     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to any 
     authority previously made available for obligation.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $25,511,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 1999.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursement for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $24,000,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C. and chapter 301 of 
     title 49, U.S.C. $87,400,000, of which $58,558,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     or expended to plan, finalize, or implement any rulemaking to 
     add to section 575.104 of title 49 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations any requirement pertaining to a grading standard 
     that is different from the three grading standards 
     (treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance) already in 
     effect.

                        Operations and Research


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payments of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until 
     expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 1999, are in excess of 
     $72,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.

                        National Driver Register


                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under 
     chapter 303 of title 49, U.S.C., $2,000,000 to be derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund, and to remain available until 
     expended.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411 to remain 
     available until expended, $200,000,000, to be derived from 
     the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available for the planning or execution of 
     programs the total obligations for which, in fiscal year

[[Page H6726]]

     1999, are in excess of $200,000,000 for programs authorized 
     under 23 U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411 of which $150,000,000 
     shall be for ``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     $10,000,000 shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive 
     Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 405, $35,000,000 shall be for 
     ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 
     U.S.C. 410, $5,000,000 shall be for the ``State Highway 
     Safety Data Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further, 
     That none of these funds shall be used for construction, 
     rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for office 
     furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $9,943,000 of the funds made available for Highway Safety 
     Programs under 23 U.S.C. 402 shall be available to NHTSA for 
     administering ``Highway Safety Programs'': Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $500,000 of the funds made available for 
     section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures 
     Grants'' shall be available for technical assistance to the 
     States.

                      Motor Carrier Safety Grants


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 31102, $100,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $100,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants''.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $21,367,000, of 
     which $1,784,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, as part of the Washington Union Station 
     transaction in which the Secretary assumed the first deed of 
     trust on the property and, where the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is obligated to 
     make payments on such deed of trust on the Secretary's 
     behalf, including payments on and after September 30, 1988, 
     the Secretary is authorized to receive such payments directly 
     from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them 
     to the appropriation charged for the first deed of trust, and 
     make payments on the first deed of trust with those funds: 
     Provided further, That such additional sums as may be 
     necessary for payment on the first deed of trust may be 
     advanced by the Administrator from unobligated balances 
     available to the Federal Railroad Administration, to be 
     reimbursed from payments received from the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation.

                            Railroad Safety

       For necessary expenses in connection with railroad safety, 
     not otherwise provided for, $60,948,000, of which $3,825,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated under this heading are available for the 
     reimbursement of out-of-state travel and per diem costs 
     incurred by employees of State governments directly 
     supporting the Federal railroad safety program, including 
     regulatory development and compliance-related activities.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $20,477,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to sell aluminum 
     reaction rail, power rail base, and other related materials 
     located at the Transportation Technology Center, near Pueblo, 
     Colorado and shall credit the receipts from such sale to this 
     account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, to remain available 
     until expended.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds during fiscal year 1999.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for Next Generation High-Speed Rail 
     program, as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102, 
     $15,294,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds under this heading may be made available for 
     grants to States for high-speed rail corridor design, 
     feasibility studies, environmental analyses, and track and 
     signal improvements.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $2,000,000 be matched by the State 
     of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar-for-dollar basis 
     and to remain available until expended.

     Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       For necessary expenses of capital improvements of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104(a) $609,230,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the funding under this heading shall 
     be available only after (1) deposit in the Treasury of the 
     sums made available to the Corporation pursuant to section 
     977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and (2) approval of a 
     comprehensive capital plan for use of section 977 funds and 
     amounts provided under this heading by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That upon satisfaction of 
     the prior proviso, section 977 funds shall be available.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $10,800,000: Provided, That no 
     more than $54,000,000 of budget authority shall be available 
     for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds in 
     this Act available for the execution of contracts under 
     section 5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $750,000 
     shall be transferred to the Department of Transportation 
     Inspector General for costs associated with the audit and 
     review of new fixed guideway systems.

                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 United States Code 
     5307, 5308, 5310, 5311, and 5327, $570,000,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $2,850,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.

                   University Transportation Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 United States Code 
     5505, $1,200,000: Provided, That no more than $6,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 United States Code 
     5303, 5304, 5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 
     5322, $19,800,000: Provided, That no more than $98,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That $5,250,000 is available to provide 
     rural transportation assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2); 
     $4,000,000 is available to carry out programs under the 
     National Transit Institute (49 U.S.C. 5315); $8,250,000 is 
     available to carry out transit cooperative research programs 
     (49 U.S.C. 5313(a); $43,841,600 is available for metropolitan 
     planning (49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, and 5305); $9,158,400 is 
     available for state planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b); and 
     $27,500,000 is available for the national planning and 
     research program (49 U.S.C. 5314).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5303 through 5308, 5310 through 5315, 5317(b), 5322, 
     5327, and 5334, $2,446,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the Mass Transit Account of 
     the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That $2,280,000,000 shall 
     be paid to the Federal Transit Administration's formula 
     grants account: Provided further, That $78,200,000 shall be 
     paid to the Federal Transit Administration's transit planning 
     and research account: Provided further, That $43,200,000 
     shall be paid to the Federal Transit Administration's 
     administrative expenses account: Provided further, That 
     $4,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's university transportation research account: 
     Provided further, That $40,000,000 shall be paid to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's job access and reverse 
     commute grants program.

                       Capital Investment Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 
     5318, and 5327, $451,400,000: Provided, That no more than 
     $2,257,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for 
     these purposes: Provided further, That there shall be 
     available for fixed guideway modernization, $902,800,000; 
     there shall be available for the replacement, rehabilitation, 
     and purchase of buses and related equipment and the 
     construction of bus-related facilities, $451,400,000; and 
     there shall be available for new fixed guideway systems, 
     $902,800,000, to be available as follows:
       $10,400,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
       $52,110,000 for the Atlanta North Springs project;
       $1,000,000 for the Austin Capital metro project;
       $3,000,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina North-South 
     corridor transitway project;
       $4,000,000 for Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions and 
     upgrades;
       $2,000,000 for the Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood 
     line project;
       $4,000,000 for the Clark County, Nevada fixed guideway 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Cleveland Berea Red Line extension to 
     the Hopkins International Airport;
       $2,000,000 for the Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement 
     project;
       $10,698,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project;
       $8,000,000 for the DART North Central light rail extension 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Dayton, Ohio light rail study;

[[Page H6727]]

       $40,000,000 for the Denver Southwest Corridor project;
       $17,000,000 for the Dulles Corridor project;
       $4,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County 
     commuter rail project;
       $500,000 for the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania capital area 
     transit/corridor one project;
       $2,000,000 for the Houston Advanced Transit Program;
       $59,670,000 for the Houston Regional Bus project;
       $1,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas I-35 commuter 
     rail project;
       $1,500,000 for the Knoxville, Tennessee electric transit 
     project;
       $46,000,000 for the Los Angeles MOS-3 project;
       $17,041,000 for MARC commuter rail improvements;
       $1,500,000 for the Maryland Route 5 corridor project;
       $2,200,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail 
     extension project;
       $3,000,000 for the Miami Metro-Dade Transit east-west 
     corridor project;
       $1,000,000 for the Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue 
     corridor project;
       $2,000,000 for the Mission Valley East light rail transit 
     project;
       $500,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee regional commuter 
     rail project;
       $70,000,000 for the New Jersey urban core Hudson-Bergen LRT 
     project;
       $43,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the New Orleans Desire Streetcar project;
       $2,000,000 for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach regional rail 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana South Shore commuter 
     rail project;
       $5,500,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido light rail project;
       $4,000,000 for the Orange County, California transitway 
     project;
       $17,500,000 for the Orlando Lynx Light rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill 
     Valley Metro project;
       $1,000,000 for the Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro 
     project;
       $8,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Pittsburgh Allegheny County busway and 
     light rail projects;
       $25,718,000 for the Portland-Westside/Hillsboro and South-
     North light rail projects;
       $1,000,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Link light rail project;
       $19,500,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail 
     project;
       $8,000,000 for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle 
     Transit project;
       $23,480,000 for the Sacramento south corridor LRT project;
       $70,000,000 for the Salt Lake City South LRT project;
       $3,000,000 for the Salt Lake City/Airport to University 
     (West-East) light rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the San Bernardino Metrolink extension 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the San Diego Mid-Coast corridor project;
       $74,000,000 for the San Francisco BART extension to the 
     airport project;
       $500,000 for the San Jacinto-Branch Line (Riverside County) 
     project;
       $35,000,000 for the San Jose Tasman LRT project;
       $60,000,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano;
       $53,983,000 for the South Boston Piers MOS-2 project;
       $1,000,000 for the South DeKalb-Lindbergh Corridor LRT 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Spokane, Washington light rail project;
       $35,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair County LRT 
     extension project;
       $500,000 for the Tampa Bay regional rail project;
       $22,000,000 for the Twin Cities transitways project;
       $2,000,000 for the Virginia Rail Express Fredericksburg to 
     Washington commuter rail project;
       $1,000,000 for the West Trenton, New Jersey rail project; 
     and
       $1,000,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal project: 
     Provided further, That funds provided in Public Law 105-66 
     for the Pennsylvania Strawberry Hill/Diamond Branch rail 
     project shall be available for the Laurel Rail line project 
     in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

                       Mass Transit Capital Fund


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(b) administered by the Federal Transit 
     Administration, $1,805,600,000, to be derived from the 
     Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the 
     Federal Transit Act of 1998, $10,000,000: Provided, That no 
     more than $50,000,000 of budget authority shall be available 
     for these purposes: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this head, not more than $10,000,000 shall 
     be used for grants for reverse commute projects.

             Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 14 of Public Law 96-184 and Public Law 101-551, 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.

                       Operations and Maintenance


                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operation and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $11,496,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $34,379,000, of 
     which $574,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $8,460,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided, That $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for activities authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5506: 
     Provided further, That up to $1,200,000 in fees collected 
     under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the general 
     fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to 
     be available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training, for 
     reports publication and dissemination, and for travel 
     expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials 
     exemptions and approvals functions.

                            Pipeline Safety


                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $33,448,000, of which $4,475,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2001; and of which 
     $28,973,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $16,919,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That in addition to amounts made 
     available for the Pipeline Safety Fund, $1,300,000 shall be 
     available for grants to States for the development and 
     establishment of one-call notification systems, public 
     education, and damage prevention activities, and shall be 
     derived from amounts previously collected under 49 U.S.C. 
     60301.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants


                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That 
     not more than $9,600,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 1999 from amounts made available by 
     49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d): Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d) 
     shall be made available for obligation by individuals other 
     than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $43,495,000.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $16,000,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $2,600,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1999, to result in a final appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at no more than $16,000,000: Provided 
     further, That any fees received in excess of $2,600,000 in 
     fiscal year 1999 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1999.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $3,847,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be

[[Page H6728]]

     credited to this appropriation funds received for 
     publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902), 
     $53,300,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                             Emergency Fund

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board for accident investigations, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902), $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 40, line 9, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this portion of the 
bill?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order against this 
part of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his first point of order, and 
we will deal with them individually.


                            Points of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 11, 
line 19, beginning with ``of which'' through ``fund'' on Line 20.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it alters the 
funding formula established under the airport improvement program by 
appropriating $2.06 billion out of the airport and airway fund for FAA 
operations. The correct figure should be approximately $1,970,000,000 
if the formula under existing law is followed. The added funding for 
appropriations has the effect of changing existing law and therefore 
constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House 
rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we certainly did not want to have any 
legislation on an appropriation bill, so I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 16, 
line 20 through line 24. This provisions violates clause 2 of rule XXI 
because it rescinds $5 million in Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
contract authority, not general fund appropriations for grants and aid 
to airports. Airport and Airway Trust Fund contract authority, while a 
form of direct spending, is legislative in nature, and rescinding such 
authority is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  This rescission constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 18, 
line 2, beginning with ``provided'' through ``motor carriers'' on line 
5.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it transfers 
contract authority funds from the Federal Highway Administration to pay 
for the functions of the Office of Motor Carriers.
  This provision changes existing law, and, therefore, constitutes 
legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this would save a lot of lives, and make 
truck safety much better throughout the Nation and keep accidents from 
taking place, but I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       On page 11, line 19 of the bill, after ``5,532,558,000,'', 
     insert the following: ``of which $1,972,500,000 shall be 
     derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the previous point of order deleted the trust 
fund's share of the FAA's operating expenses. I am aware that the 
chairman of the authorizing committee objects to a trust fund share in 
excess of $1.9725 billion which is the maximum authorized level 
according to the formula in the current law. However, the authorizing 
committee has written that there is no objection to a trust fund share 
at the authorized level. My amendment simply states that $1.9725 
billion of FAA's total operating budget may be taken from the Aviation 
Trust Fund. That is the authorized level.
  Mr. Chairman, I know of no objection to the amendment. I encourage 
its adoption.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but might 
I address a question to the gentleman?
  Does the effect of the combination of the point of order, the 
gentleman's amendment now implementing that, mean that significantly 
less than half of the operations budget of the FAA now comes from the 
Airport Trust Fund?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. SABO. So, it is probably close to 60 percent of the operations 
actually comes from general revenue and not from the trust fund.
  Mr. WOLF. That is correct.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       On page 26, strike lines 1 through 2.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer a technical amendment to strike the 
proviso that appears on the top of page 26. The proviso inadvertently 
changed the payment of the tax credit to Amtrak made by the Tax Payer 
Relief Act. That was not the intent of the committee. The committee 
merely intends to ensure that the Federal funds available to the 
corporation in fiscal year 1999 would be available only after Amtrak 
developed a comprehensive capital plan for the expenditure of the tax 
credit as proposed by the President's budget. The Committee on Ways and 
Means brought this oversight to our attention, and again it was not the 
committee's intent to change the payment of the TRA funds in any way.
  Mr. Chairman, it is technical in nature, and I urge its immediate 
adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this part of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1999 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available: (1) except as otherwise authorized by title VIII 
     of the

[[Page H6729]]

     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7701 et seq.), for expenses of primary and secondary 
     schooling for dependents of Federal Aviation Administration 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     costs for any given area not in excess of those of the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, 
     available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 
     for the education of such dependents; and (2) for 
     transportation of said dependents between schools serving the 
     area that they attend and their places of residence when the 
     Secretary, under such regulations as may be prescribed, 
     determines that such schools are not accessible by public 
     means of transportation on a regular basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 88 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. The Secretary of Transportation may enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions with 
     any person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, 
     any unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, and any other entity in execution of the 
     Technology Reinvestment Project authorized under the Defense 
     Conversion, Reinvestment and Transition Assistance Act of 
     1992 and related legislation: Provided, That the authority 
     provided in this section may be exercised without regard to 
     section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 309. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 310. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation under the discretionary grants 
     program.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 312. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The FAA shall accept such equipment, which shall thereafter 
     be operated and maintained by the FAA in accordance with 
     agency criteria.
       Sec. 314. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that: 
     (a) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any one year 
     of the contract; or (b) includes a cancellation charge 
     greater than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has 
     not been appropriated to the limits of the Government's 
     liability; or (c) includes a requirement that permits 
     performance under the contract during the second and 
     subsequent years of the contract without conditioning such 
     performance upon the appropriation of funds: Provided, That 
     this limitation does not apply to a contract in which the 
     Federal Government incurs no financial liability from not 
     buying additional systems, subsystems, or components beyond 
     the basic contract requirements.
       Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Capital Investments Grants'' for projects specified in this 
     Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not 
     obligated by September 30, 2001, shall be made available for 
     other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 1998, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 317. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 350 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     1999.
       Sec. 318. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by 
     $20,000,000, which limits fiscal year 1999 TASC obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $89,124,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the Transportation Administrative Service 
     Center.
       Sec. 319. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Limitation on General Operating Expenses'' account, the 
     Federal Transit Administration's ``Transit Planning and 
     Research'' account, and to the Federal Railroad 
     Administration's ``Railroad Safety'' account, except for 
     State rail safety inspectors participating in training 
     pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this 
     section.
       Sec. 321. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall convey, without 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcels of real property described in 
     this section, together with any improvements thereon, as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate for purposes of the 
     conveyance, to the entities described in this section, 
     namely: (a) United States Coast Guard Pass Manchac Light in 
     Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, to the State of Louisiana; and 
     (b) Tchefuncte River Range Rear Light in Madisonville, 
     Louisiana, to the Town of Madisonville, Louisiana.
       Sec. 322. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 323. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 324. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the 
     absence of express authorization by Congress, be used 
     directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
     advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or 
     written matter, or other device, intended or designed to 
     influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or 
     oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or 
     appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the 
     introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such 
     legislation or appropriation: Provided, That this shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the Department of 
     Transportation or related agencies funded in this Act from 
     communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any 
     Member or to Congress, through the proper official channels, 
     requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem 
     necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
       Sec. 325. Not to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds provided in 
     this Act for the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for the necessary expenses of advisory committees.
       Sec. 326. No funds other than those appropriated to the 
     Surface Transportation Board or fees collected by the Board 
     shall be used for conducting the activities of the Board.

[[Page H6730]]

       Sec. 327. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the funds the entity will comply with the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 328. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     receipts, in amounts determined by the Secretary, collected 
     from users of fitness centers operated by or for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available to support 
     the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
       Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to implement or enforce regulations that would result in the 
     withdrawal of a slot from an air carrier at O'Hare 
     International Airport under section 93.223 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations in excess of the total slots 
     withdrawn from that air carrier as of October 31, 1993 if 
     such additional slot is to be allocated to an air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier under section 93.217 of title 14 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 330. Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 41742, no essential air 
     service shall be provided to communities in the 48 contiguous 
     States that are located fewer than 70 highway miles from the 
     nearest large and medium hub airport, or that require a rate 
     of subsidy per passenger in excess of $200 unless such point 
     is greater than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium 
     hub airport.
       Sec. 331. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department from travel 
     management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
     building space, and miscellaneous sources are to be credited 
     to appropriations of the Department and allocated to elements 
     of the Department using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until December 31, 1999.
       Sec. 332. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, 
     rule or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized to allow the issuer of any preferred stock 
     heretofore sold to the Department to redeem or repurchase 
     such stock upon the payment to the Department of an amount 
     determined by the Secretary.
       Sec. 333. The unobligated balances of the funds made 
     available in previous appropriations Acts for the National 
     Civil Aviation Review Commission and for Urban Discretionary 
     Grants are rescinded.
       Sec. 334. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the land and improvements thereto comprising the Coast 
     Guard Reserve Training Facility in Jacksonville, Florida, is 
     deemed to be surplus property; and
       (2) the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall dispose of all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     that property, by sale, at fair market value.
       (b) Right of First Refusal.--Before a sale is made under 
     subsection (a) to any other person, the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard shall give to the city of Jacksonville, Florida, 
     the right of first refusal to purchase all or any part of the 
     property required to be sold under that subsection.
       Sec. 335. Of the funds provided under Coast Guard 
     ``Operating expenses'', $1,000,000 is only for the Secretary 
     of Transportation, in consultation with the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard, to establish a blue-ribbon panel to study the 
     future capital requirements, roles, and missions of the U.S. 
     Coast Guard, the activities of which shall not be subject to 
     section 325 of this Act.
       Sec. 336. Of the funds provided under Federal Aviation 
     Administration ``Operations'', $250,000 is only for 
     activities and operations of the Centennial of Flight 
     Commission.
       Sec. 337. Notwithstanding any provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to waive 
     repayment of any Federal-aid highway funds expended on the 
     construction of high occupancy lanes or auxiliary lanes on I-
     287 in the State of New Jersey: Provided, That such waiver 
     shall not be granted by the Secretary until such time as the 
     Secretary is assured by the State of New Jersey that removal 
     of the high occupancy vehicle restrictions on I-287 is in the 
     public interest.
       Sec. 338. Funds made available in previous appropriations 
     Acts for a railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, 
     Georgia shall be available for other street, rail, and 
     related improvements in the vicinity of the grade crossing of 
     the CSX railroad and 15th Street in Augusta, Georgia.
       Sec. 339. Of the $40,000,000 provided under section 1602 of 
     Public Law 105-178, item number 1679, $28,253,470 shall only 
     be available for fire and life safety improvements to the 
     East River and North Tunnels and the subterranean complex of 
     Pennsylvania Station.
       Sec. 340. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     or subsequent Acts may be used by the Coast Guard to issue, 
     implement, or enforce a regulation or to establish an 
     interpretation or guideline under the Edible Oil Regulatory 
     Reform Act (Public Law 104-55), or the amendments made by 
     that Act, that does not recognize and provide for, with 
     respect to fats, oils, and greases (as described in that Act, 
     or the amendments made by that Act) differences in--
       (1) physical, chemical, biological and other relevant 
     properties; and
       (2) environmental effects.
       (b) Deadline for Promulgation of Regulations.--Not later 
     than March 31, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue regulations amending 33 C.F.R. 154 to comply with the 
     requirements of Public Law 104-55.
       Sec. 341. Funding made available in Public Law 105-174 for 
     emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair shall be 
     available for repairs resulting from natural disasters 
     occurring from September 1996 through July 10, 1998.
       Sec. 342. For purposes of evaluating environmental impacts 
     of the toll road in Orange and San Diego counties, 
     California, the Administrator of the Federal Highway 
     Administration shall consider only those transportation 
     alternatives previously identified by regional planning 
     processes and shall restrict agency comments to those matters 
     over which the agency has direct jurisdiction.
       Sec. 343. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, 
     the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, shall convey to 
     the University of South Alabama (in this section referred to 
     as ``the recipient''), the right, title, and interest of the 
     United States Government in and to a decommissioned vessel of 
     the Coast Guard, as determined appropriate by the Commandant 
     and the recipient, if--
       (1) the recipient agrees to use the vessel for the purposes 
     of supporting archaeological and historical research in the 
     Mobile Bay Delta;
       (2) the recipient agrees not to use the vessel for 
     commercial transportation purposes, except as incident to the 
     provision of logistics services in connection with the Old 
     Mobile Archaeological Project;
       (3) The recipient agrees to make the vessel available to 
     the Government if the Commandant requires use of the vessel 
     by the Government in times of war or national emergency;
       (4) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless 
     for any claims arising from exposure to hazardous materials 
     including, but not limited to, asbestos and polychlorinated 
     biphenyls (PCBs), after conveyance of the vessel, except for 
     claims arising from use by the Government under paragraph 
     (3);
       (5) the recipient has funds available to be committed for 
     use to restore the vessel to operation and thereafter 
     maintain it in good working condition, in the amount of at 
     least $400,000; and
       (6) the recipient agrees to any other conditions that the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (b) Delivery of Vessel.--If a conveyance is made under this 
     section, the Commandant shall deliver the vessel at the place 
     where the vessel is located, in its present condition, 
     without cost to the Government. The conveyance of this vessel 
     shall not be considered a distribution in commerce for 
     purposes of 15 U.S.C. section 2605(e).
       (c) Other Unneeded Equipment.--The Commandant may convey to 
     the recipient any unneeded equipment or parts from other 
     decommissioned vessels pending disposition for use to restore 
     the vessel to operability. The Commandant may require 
     compensation from the recipient for such items.
       (d) Applicable Laws and Regulations.--The vessel shall at 
     all times remain subject to applicable vessel safety laws and 
     regulations.
       Sec. 344. Item 1132 in section 1602 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 298), relating to 
     Mississippi, is amended by striking ``Pirate Cove'' and 
     inserting ``Pirates' Cove and 4-lane connector to Mississippi 
     Highway 468''.

     SEC. __. CONVEYANCE OF COAST GUARD PROPERTY TO JACKSONVILLE 
                   UNIVERSITY IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation may convey 
     to Jacksonville University, located in Jackson, Florida, 
     without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the property comprising the Long 
     Branch Rear Range Light, Jacksonville, Florida.
       (2) Identification of property.--The Secretary may 
     identify, describe, and determine the property to be conveyed 
     under this section.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--Any conveyance of any property 
     under this section shall be made--
       (1) subject to such terms and conditions as the Commandant 
     may consider appropriate; and
       (2) subject to the condition that all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property

[[Page H6731]]

     conveyed shall immediately revert to the United States if the 
     property, or any part thereof, ceases to be used by 
     Jacksonville University.

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 59, line 5, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this section of the 
bill?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
339. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it limits 
contract authority for the Pennsylvania Station project. This provision 
changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an 
appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
section is stricken.
  Are there any amendments to this part of the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ackerman

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:
       Page 59, after line 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 347. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for closing any Coast Guard station in fiscal year 
     1999 unless such closure has been specifically authorized by 
     law.

  (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment which would 
prevent the Coast Guard from closing any stations without specific 
congressional approval. This amendment would not allow the Coast Guard 
to use funds in fiscal year 1999 to close the station whose closure was 
not expressly authorized by the Congress.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the gentleman's amendment, 
and I understand the grave concerns that are posed to the public health 
and safety by closing the Coast Guard station specifically in the case 
of the Eaton Neck's Coast Guard station on Long Island. However, if the 
gentleman would kindly withdraw his amendment, I am confident we can 
find a suitable alternative to closing the Eaton Neck's Coast Guard 
Station. I would be willing to set up a meeting next week with the 
gentleman and Admiral Loy, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to find 
an alternative solution to closing the Coast Guard Station at Eaton's 
Neck.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I 
appreciate the gentleman's attention to this matter. His word has 
always been as good as gold in this body. I would be glad to withdraw 
my amendment with his assurance and look forward to working with him on 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman) is withdrawn.

                              {time}  2340


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in title I under 
     the heading ``OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY--AMTRAK REFORM 
     COUNCIL'' may be used for payments to outside consultants.

  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, a great Nation needs a great national 
passenger rail system, and I believe we have established one in the 
United States that is getting even better literally with every day, as 
we have read some very good news from Amtrak today.
  In 1987, the Congress came up with an innovative plan for a review 
council that would give a fair, public, and objective evaluation of 
where Amtrak is going and the progress that it is making.
  I believe that this bill makes an important contribution to that 
effort. I particularly commend the chairman for appropriating $450,000 
instead of the $1.9 million which was originally requested.
  I think that another way we can expand on the chairman's efforts to 
make sure that we get a fair and efficient evaluation of where Amtrak 
is going is my amendment, which would specifically say that funds under 
this section may not be used for outside consultants.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have ample and more than adequate 
expertise within the members of the council and the Department of 
Transportation, and I believe this amendment would accomplish those 
objectives.
  I also would like to engage the Chairman of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy at this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be glad 
to. Before I begin, let me just say we do accept the gentleman's 
amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think we can work with the 
DOT and IG. Having said that, I would be glad to engage with him in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman for his 
leadership on this issue and for his support of Amtrak. In particular, 
I commend the chairman for his responsible action of providing only a 
small portion of the funds requested by the council.
  Some members of the council have requested an appropriation of $1.9 
million. The committee has appropriated only $450,000. This is a clear 
signal to the American taxpayers that Congress is active in its fight 
against wasteful spending.
  It is my understanding that in appropriating this money, the 
committee expects the council to follow the dictates provided in law 
that their meeting should be open to the public. Is that also the 
chairman's understanding?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, that is my 
understanding clearly.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it is also my understanding that the 
committee expects the council to spend money on travel only when 
absolutely necessary to fulfill its responsibilities as prescribed by 
Congress in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. Is that also the 
understanding and expectation of the chairman?
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I want to just conclude my remarks by also thanking the 
chairman for his support of $50 million for the job access and reverse 
commute funding in a different part of this bill. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague, was the leader in getting that 
program authorized. We appreciate the effort in getting it 
appropriated.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
This amendment is an attempt to further hamstring the Amtrak Reform 
Council--a group of outside volunteers, a majority of whom were 
appointed by the congressional leadership itself. These are public-
spirited citizens of both parties who get no pay, only travel 
reimbursement under the specific terms of the 1997 Amtrak Reform Law.
  Yet this amendment tries to beat up on a volunteer watchdog group 
that has been allocated what in my opinion is already an inadequate 
appropriation--only $450,000.
  Why so much attention to such a small outfit? Because the Clinton 
administration is deathly afraid of facts and candor where Amtrak is 
concerned. From the day the President signed last year's Amtrak Reform 
Law, there has been an unrelenting pattern of delay, sabotage, and non-
feasance by the Clinton administration. Time and time again, the 
administration has-characteristically, simply ignored federal law.
  The reform council is the one source of analysis and scrutiny that 
the administration cannot control: It's not part of D.O.T., its made

[[Page H6732]]

up of outside independent leaders, and it has a broad mandate under the 
law to delve into all aspects of rail passenger service. What could be 
more frightening to an administration that adheres slavishly to a 
status quo that will simply guarantee an Amtrak bankruptcy?
  That's where the Andrews amendment comes in. The administration wants 
the reform council denigrated, disenfranchised, and defunded. The 
President has made that clear by, among other things, not appointing 
either of the two presidential members of the council--A labor and 
management representative--although the law required him to do that 
seven months ago. The Andrews amendment is just the latest installment 
in the continuing effort to sabotage Amtrak Reform.
  This amendment would forbid the reform council to hire any outside 
consultants to assist it in carrying out its mandate under the Reform 
Law.
  The mandate includes evaluating Amtrak's performance and making 
recommendations for cost containment, productivity improvements, and 
financial reform. The council is also to address Amtrak's accounting 
methods, management efficiencies, and labor cost savings.
  To do this extensive analysis, the council members necessarily must 
be free to obtain the services of experts on railroad operations, 
accounting, and indeed financial investigators. Such persons must be 
independent--not part of the Clinton administration's D.O.T. That has 
already proven itself an enemy of Amtrak reform.
  I realize that the Senate bill contains a similar restriction, albeit 
ill-advised. The Senate provision--and I believe the present 
amendment--are based on a complete misunderstanding of the Reform 
Council's function relative to the ``independent assessment'' of Amtrak 
required under a separate provision of the reform law.
  Unlike the Reform Council's broad mandate to look into virtually 
every aspect of Amtrak, the independent assessment is focused on one 
central topic--stated in section 202 of Public Law 105-134. That is 
``the financial requirements of Amtrak through fiscal year 2000.'' This 
assessment is to be conducted by an independent entity under contract 
to D.O.T.
  Far from duplicating the independent assessment, the Reform Councils' 
activities are complementary to it. The D.O.T. contractor does not have 
the broad mandate to delve into the details of all aspects of Amtrak's 
operations and to recommend systemic changes. To put it in the simplest 
terms, the independent assessment is to be a snapshot of Amtrak's 
financial requirements for Amtrak as it is now doing business. The 
Reform Council's job, on the other hand is to identify what is wrong 
with the specific business methods of Amtrak, and to recommend changes 
to those methods.
  This brings us to why the unwarranted restriction on the use of 
outside talent in this amendment is so important to the Clinton 
administration. The administration is in ``denial'' with respect to 
Amtrak; it does not want to be asked--or to have to answer--the tough 
questions about Amtrak's operations, methods, and finances. Anything 
that disarms the Reform Council advances the administration's goal of 
clinging irrationally to an untenable status quo.

  If you doubt my conclusions about the reasons behind this amendment, 
ask yourself: why are rail labor and the administration expending this 
much effort to restrict an appropriation of $450,000? it can only be 
because of a tremendous fear of having to face financial and business 
reality with respect to Amtrak.
  This amendment does not appear in a vacuum. We have now had eight 
months of consistent delay and sabotage of the Amtrak reforms that were 
negotiated with the administration and passed with bipartisan support 
last December. At every turn--the appointment of the new Amtrak Board 
of Directors, the resolution of labor issues mandated in the reform 
law, and even the appointment of the President's two selections for 
membership on the Reform Council itself--the administration has 
consistently ignored the law. Now the administration sees a chance to 
neutralize the reform council completely by denying it the resources of 
professional financial and investigative personnel.
  The Amtrak Reform Law specifically directs Amtrak to grant the Reform 
Council full access to ``all information the council requires,'' 
including proprietary matters. As the administration well knows, this 
will be a meaningless and theoretical right if the council cannot 
utilize the services of its own professionals to delve into all aspects 
of Amtrak.
  The choice on this amendment is simple: either we stand up for the 
reform we enacted last year and help to make it work, or we cater to 
the obvious desire of the Clinton administration to avoid all of the 
tough questions about the future of intercity rail passenger service.
  In sum, this amendment is an unwarranted and unfair assault on a 
bipartisan group of public-spirited citizens who are doing their level 
best to deal with the realities facing Amtrak--not the delusional world 
the administration wants to pretend it lives in. If the Clinton 
administration and other unrealistic fans of the Amtrak status quo 
would spend a fraction of the energy on actual reform of Amtrak that 
they have already expended in trying to beat up on a very sound 
$450,000 expenditure, everyone--especially Amtrak and the future of 
rail passenger service--would be much better served.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 347. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 
     105-178) may be used for improvements to the Miller Highway 
     in New York City.

                             Point Of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation 
in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule 
XXII. The rule states in pertinent part no amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. I would 
ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia raises a point of order. 
Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will await the ruling of the Chair on 
this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) makes a point of 
order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI for legislating on an 
appropriation bill.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to deny 
the use of funds in the pending Act and in the authorizing law for 
improvements to the Miller highway.
  Clause 2(c) of rule XXI provides that no amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law. A 
general principle of the rule prohibiting amendments to general 
appropriation bills that change existing law is that a limitation 
amendment must confine itself to funds in the pending bill. This 
principle is codified on page 677 of the House Rules and Manual.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard enough. I concede the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The point of 
order is conceded and sustained.
  Are there further amendments to this part of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York City, 
     except for funds resulting from obligations pursuant to 
     sections 1601 and 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178).

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, once again, along with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), with strong support from 
the administration, from the Pork Busters Coalition, the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, I rise to offer an amendment to keep 
valuable taxpayers' dollars from being wasted on an outrageous 
boondoggle in my district in New York City.
  The language we seek to add to this bill, with one change 
necessitated by the Chair's ruling on the first amendment, is the exact 
same language that has been included in this bill for the last 3 years.

[[Page H6733]]

  For 3 years, this Congress has said no, we do not believe this 
project is worthwhile. Nothing in the past 3 years has changed, except 
for one action by the other body; not the design nor the purpose of 
this project.
  The issue is simple. Donald Trump wants the taxpayers to put up $350 
million so that he can take a highway, a 13-block long highway, that 
was rehabilitated for close to $90 million of taxpayers' money, the 
ribbon cutting was less than 5 years ago, this highway has a life 
expectancy of 35 to 40 years before the necessity for major 
expenditures will arise again, and having just refinished rebuilding 
this highway at a cost of close to $90 million, Mr. Trump wants to take 
300 to 350 million additional taxpayers' dollars and tear it down and 
move it a few hundred feet and change a straight highway into a curved 
highway.
  Why? So that the residents in the new luxury apartments in the 
buildings he is planning to develop will have an unobstructed view of 
the Hudson River and The Palisades and the glorious sunsets in New 
Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the view of The Palisades in New Jersey 
and the Hudson River. It is a beautiful river, but I do not think that 
we should be spending $350 million of the taxpayers' money so that Mr. 
Trump will be able to charge higher prices, higher rents for these new 
luxury apartments and will be able to sell these new condos for higher 
prices.
  If Mr. Trump wants better views so that he can get better prices for 
his apartments, let him put up the money. For him it is a pittance. Let 
him put up the money to move this perfectly good highway.
  I would like to point out that there is no transportation purpose to 
this project whatsoever. No one even claims it. In fact, from a 
transportation point of view, it is not a good idea to take a straight 
highway and substitute a 180 degree curved highway.
  The only purpose for this boondoggle is to line Mr. Trump's pockets.
  I would like to point out that every local elected official, the 
State Senator, the assembly member, the council member, the two local 
community planning boards, 4,000 local residents whose petition 
signatures I have here, say to us, do not waste the money on this 
boondoggle. Do not pass this project.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Neumann) and the Pork Busters Coalition and the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Clinton administration for the 
strong support they have given this amendment and the work they have 
done to put the brakes on this boondoggle.
  Now, the second amendment which was not ruled out of order has one 
difference. A Senator from my State, or a Member of the other body from 
my State, put $6 million in the TEA-21 Act in the dead of night in the 
conference committee for a study of moving this highway.
  This study is a boondoggle. It is $6 million to study something that 
is not going to happen because it would cost $350 million and this 
Congress is going to say, as it has before, this will not happen.
  We cannot, because of the rules, take that $6 million out of the 
bill. So, unfortunately, we will waste maybe $6 million.
  I will point out, I would like to read one paragraph from a letter 
written by the deputy major of the City of New York, to Donald Trump. 
``Dear Donald, while the administration is fully committed to the 
Miller Highway relocation, it is critical that the funds for the 
project not redirect or act as an offset for Federal or State funds for 
other transportation and infrastructure projects in New York City, the 
city's numerous pressing highway and transportation needs that have 
Federal financial support and the administration would not be able to 
support a relocation proposal that reduced Federal commitments to these 
other projects.''
  I will point out that all of the money, except for the $6 million, 
the other $294 million to $344 million for this project, would have to 
come out of the State's general formula money and the mayor obviously 
does not want that to happen because he intelligently understands that 
there are far more important things for the people of the city and 
State of New York than this boondoggle.

                              {time}  2350

  All this amendment, as rewritten, as modified, would do is to make 
sure that, other than that $6 million which, unfortunately, we cannot 
touch because of the Rules of the House, no funds generally obligated 
for transportation in New York are diverted from other projects 
elsewhere in the State or the city for this project.
  Mr. Chairman, I again urge that this amendment be adopted.
  I include for the Record four letters, one from the Office of 
Management and Budget, one from the Taxpayers for Common Sense, one 
from the National Taxpayers Union, and one from the Citizens Against 
Government Waste.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nadler: Thank you for your letter 
     requesting the President to line item veto funds contained in 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
     for the Miller Highway project. The President has asked that 
     I respond on his behalf.
       The Administration shares your concern that funding to 
     convert Miller Highway to an underground tunnel is not 
     appropriate. However, on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court 
     declared the President's authority to utilize the line item 
     veto to cancel specific project funding unconstitutional.
       I understand that you may be offering an amendment to the 
     Transportation Appropriations bill that would prohibit funds 
     from being made available for the Miller Highway project, as 
     has been enacted into law in recent years. The Administration 
     would support such an amendment.
       As you recall, the Administration expressed concern 
     regarding the excessive funding provided for so-called ``high 
     priority'' highway demonstration projects prior to the 
     passage of TEA-21. We are particularly concerned that these 
     projects have not received appropriate scrutiny.
       Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our 
     attention.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew,
     Acting Director.
                                  ____



                                   Taxpayers for Common Sense,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.


why should taxpayers pay for a project opposed by the congressman whose 
                           district it's in?

       Dear Representative: Taxpayers for Common Sense urges you 
     to support the Nadler-Royce-Minge-Neumann amendment to the 
     FY99 Transportation Appropriations bill that would prohibit 
     the use of funds to relocate the Miller Highway in New York 
     City.
       The relocation of this highway would serve no determinable 
     transportation purpose. An independent architect estimated 
     this project would cost as much as $350 million. Real estate 
     developers have an interest in getting federal dollars for 
     this project because the highway relocation would raise the 
     value of their property.
       Representative Nadler opposes this wasteful project, even 
     though the federal money would go to his district. Many 
     residents and area officials join him in opposing the 
     project. In December 1994, the Miller Highway was refurbished 
     at a cost of $80 million. Those repairs have a life 
     expectancy of 35 to 40 years. Developers are now trying to 
     get funding for a project to tear down and rebuild this 
     renovated highway, at a possible cost of more than $300 
     million, even though the move has no apparent transportation 
     benefit.
       Taxpayers should not be forced to shell out hundreds of 
     millions of dollars to subsidize greater profit margins for 
     private investors. This project exemplifies the extravagance 
     that a fiscally responsible Congress cannot tolerate. Support 
     the Nadler-Royce-Minge-Neumann amendment and stop this 
     wasteful expenditure of federal transportation funds.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jill Lancelot,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 23, 1998.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nadler: The National Taxpayers Union, 
     America's largest grassroots taxpayer organization, strongly 
     supports your amendment to the FY 1999 Transportation 
     Appropriations bill to stop the resurrection of a huge pork 
     barrel project in your own district--the infamous Miller 
     Highway.
       The Department of Transportation strictly ordered all work 
     to stop on this boondoggle in 1995. However, real estate 
     mogul Donald Trump has persisted in seeking taxpayer funds to 
     tear down and move the recently refurbished highway to enable 
     him to build

[[Page H6734]]

     luxury housing. Somehow, $6 million was added to the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 
     during conference committee. This $6 million is only a small 
     down payment that could mutate into a staggering $350 million 
     in federal funds according to one independent architect.
       In 1995, taxpayers spent more than $90 million to 
     rehabilitate this very same elevated highway. This 
     ``emergency reconstruction'' is projected to have a life 
     expectancy of 35 to 40 years. Mr. Trump proposes to demolish 
     this recent highway reconstruction and move it a few hundred 
     feet to provide an unobstructed view of the Hudson River. Is 
     this really a federal taxpayer priority? Absolutely not.
       We applaud your effort to stop pork in your own district. 
     New York City Councilmembers, State Senators and 
     Assemblymembers, and two local planning groups have already 
     said ``no'' to Mr. Trump. He just hasn't listened. Mr. Trump 
     should pay for the unobstructed view of the Hudson River out 
     of his own pocket rather than pick the pockets of millions of 
     hard working taxpayers.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John Berthoud,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Council for Citizens Against


                                             Government Waste,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.
       Dear Member of Congress: Election year politics is once 
     again affecting sound public policy. We write today to offer 
     our strong support for the Nadler-Royce-Minge-Neumann 
     amendment to H.R. 4328, the Transportation Appropriations Act 
     for FY 1999. This amendment would prevent the allocation of 
     $6 million to study the relocation of the Miller Highway on 
     Manhattan's Upper West Side. The relocation of the elevated 
     highway benefits one person. It would allow New York City 
     developer Donald Trump to build luxury high-rise apartments 
     with an unobstructed view of the waterfront thereby 
     increasing the value of the property.
       In 1994, the Miller Highway in Manhattan was renovated at a 
     cost to the taxpayers of over $90 million, and is expected to 
     be operable for the next 35 to 40 years. Now Mr. Trump would 
     like to have the highway moved, at a potential cost of $350 
     million to the taxpayers, along with new transportation 
     headaches for New Yorkers.
       Congress has overwhelmingly refused to support this 
     initiative in each of the last three years and should do so 
     once again. It's an absolute outrage for the House to even be 
     considering the appropriation of these taxpayer funds in 
     order to boost the real estate values of a multi-millionaire. 
     The government has already given its opinion of this 
     boondoggle when the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development recently refused to provide subsidized housing 
     loans for the project.
       Do not allow election year politics to cloud your judgment. 
     This transportation project serves no transportation purpose. 
     Please support Nadler-Royce-Minge-Nuemann.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Schatz,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take anywhere near 5 minutes, and I 
was not going to speak at all, but I was just taken aback by my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is standing up 
here talking about how he is siding with the taxpayers and he is siding 
with the pork busters and he is siding with the National Taxpayers 
Union. I find that a little amazing.
  He is a very good friend. I served in the legislature with the 
gentleman in New York State, as I did with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Schumer), my good friend. But I do find that amusing, because, as 
the gentleman knows, he is rated by those same organizations as the 
biggest spender, one of the biggest spenders in the Congress. So I just 
find it hard to find that argument credible.
  But more than that, I am from New York, but I am from way up in the 
Adirondack Mountains in New York, and it is about 200 miles from New 
York City. But we have to do what is right for our State. I believe in 
States' rights.
  I heard the gentleman saying some people were opposed to it, but I 
have a memorandum here that says that the Regional Planning Board 
Association, the Parks Council of New York, the Municipal Arts Society, 
all of these are in favor of this continuing construction of this road. 
The General Contractors Association, it goes on and on and on, the AFL-
CIO, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and including 
Mayor Lavine, Empire State Development Corporation, and a host of 
others.
  But, to me, this is not pork barrel. This is what the New York State 
Transportation Department wants, and that is what we ought to go by. We 
should not be jamming little pet projects into bills like this. We 
ought to go by the recommendations from our State, and that is exactly 
what this is.
  I might say that it is supported on a bipartisan basis by one of my 
best friends and one of the great Senators in the other body, and I am 
not talking about Al D'Amato, I am talking about Pat Moynihan, a great 
Senator. He is for this very much, and so is the other great Senator, 
Al D'Amato.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York, although I 
wonder why the gentleman is standing up here siding with all of these 
organizations who normally side with me.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that.
  First of all, I offered the amendment for the first time 3 years ago, 
and we have adopted it 3 years running. These organizations have 
supported my amendment. They recognize the wisdom of it. I appreciate 
their recognition. The fact that one disagrees with someone on a lot of 
things does not mean one disagrees on everything.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman to be 
consistent; and the next time we have amendments similar to this, I 
want the gentleman out here fighting for the National Taxpayers 
Association.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the Taxpayer Coalition, or 
the Pork Buster Coalition, in this body strongly supports this 
amendment. It really confirms the insidious nature of a conference 
committee process which has operated in secret with major legislation 
that is not available for scrutiny at the time of its presentation to 
this body.
  This process must stop. It undermines the credibility of this 
institution.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and neighbor, to 
delete funding for a multimillion dollar, unnecessary, uncalled for 
highway project.
  The Miller Highway project is truly an unprecedented act of raw pork. 
It is opposed by the Congressman whose district the project resides in. 
It is opposed by the entire neighborhood in which the highway is built. 
It serves no transportation purpose because it replaces a highway that 
was rebuilt 5 years ago. It only has the support of one very 
influential person, Donald Trump.
  Now, I do not fault Donald Trump for wanting to tear down the Miller 
Highway so he can get better views for his luxury apartments. I do not 
agree with him, but I do not fault him.
  I fault the Congress that put this wasteful boondoggle in the budget. 
I fault the Congress for building a $300 million highway to satisfy one 
person. We should be ashamed.
  The Nadler amendment rectifies this embarrassing situation, so let us 
do the right thing. Let us do right by the neighborhood. Let us do 
right by the taxpayers. Let us clear our conscience and support the 
Nadler amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to point out two points. One, this highway was not on the 
priority list submitted for the ISTEA act or the T.E.A. 21 act by 
either the city or the State. Neither the governor nor the mayor 
submitted it.
  The second thing I would point out is that the gentleman from New 
York mentioned Randy Levine as having a letter in support. Randy Levine 
is the deputy mayor of New York, and it was the second paragraph of his 
letter that I read from in which he said, the administration of New 
York City would like this highway moved but not with the use of any 
funds unless they get an extra $300 million, which they have not

[[Page H6735]]

gotten. They do not want it moved at the cost of other projects in New 
York, and that is what my amendment would accomplish.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New York has 
offered to pay for this personally, and that would solve, well, it 
would not solve the problem. It would alleviate the problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to carry out the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration proposed rule (Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945) dated 
     June 17, 1998, which implements section 656(b) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this language simply directs that 
none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used to implement 
certain rules proposed by the Department of Transportation, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on June 17, 1998, in the Federal 
Register, pages 33219 to 33225. It does not go beyond the scope of 
that, and it does not go beyond the scope of what properly may be an 
appropriations bill, such as the one currently before this body.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with these rules proposed by the Department 
of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is 
that while purporting to implement Section 656 of the Illegal 
Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, they go far 
beyond the intent of that legislation as passed by this Congress.
  The intent of that particular section of the legislation was simply 
to provide that there be proposed and implemented a tamper-resistent 
alien identification card, and to take steps to ensure that 
identification cards do not allow for fraudulent uses and purposes and 
manufactured by illegal aliens.
  However, in the rule proposed by the administration, there is a very 
clear directive intent that would result in the development of a 
national identification card. The rule would do this by providing that 
after October 1 of the year 2000, all Federal agencies may accept as 
proof of identity only a driver's license or identification document 
that conforms strictly to certain specific and uniform requirements, 
and that if any State driver's license issued by any State fails in any 
respect to conform to such requirements, it shall not be acceptable for 
any Federal purpose or by any Federal agency.
  The proposed rule also requires that all driver's licenses or 
identification cards issued by States contain a Social Security number.
  Mr. Chairman, this clearly is designed to go far beyond the scope of 
the provisions contained in Section 656 of the aforementioned 1996 
immigration law. It was not the intent of that bill or of the Congress 
to establish a national identification card, or to require that all 
States issue only drivers' licenses in a format required by the Federal 
Government.
  This proposed amendment to the transportation appropriation bill 
simply would require, by its refusal to allow any funds to be used to 
implement the proposed rule contained in the June 17, 1998, Federal 
Register, it would simply force the administration to go back, 
reconsider its rule, and come forward with a rule that hopefully would 
be in conformity with the intent of section 656 of the 1996 immigration 
bill, and would force them to amend the current proposed rule, which 
goes far beyond the intent of Congress in passing that particular 
section in 1996.
  I believe it is the clear desire of this Congress not to see a 
national identification card implemented, which these proposed rules, 
if they are not stopped at this point, will in fact result in.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do not, but I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is opposed by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Lamar Smith), who is apparently on his way to the floor. It deals 
with the immigration reform bill, which was passed by this Congress in 
another Congress. We know very, very little about it.
  We were told that there was a colloquy that was going to take place 
between the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith). We just called the office of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith). He apparently is opposed to the bill, and is on his 
way over.
  I would just say that in lieu of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
walking hopefully very fast over, I would rise in opposition to the 
amendment, which would prevent the Department of Transportation from 
implementing a regulation.
  If I might say, without me going through this as a waste of time, 
would the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) agree to withdraw the 
amendment until the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) gets here, and 
allow us to take the amendment from the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema)? Then the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) could offer 
his amendment again, and then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) 
would be here. The gentleman could offer it again, as a courtesy.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I strived to contact the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) on the way over here. I do have a colloquy to 
discuss with him.
  With the assurance that we will have time soon as the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) moves forward with her amendment, I 
certainly would withdraw it at this time with the gentleman's consent, 
and with the understanding that we would pose it immediately after the 
next amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Roukema

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema:
       Page 53, line 15, strike ``is hereby authorized to'' and 
     insert ``shall''.
       Page 53, line 18, strike the colon and all that follows 
     through ``time as'' on line 20 and insert ``if''.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I think we can very brief with this.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentlewoman, I think it is a 
great amendment, and I accept it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me just say a few words, and also acknowledge my colleagues, the 
gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Franks, who really 
initiated this issue, and included the language in the bill that we 
have before us.
  Mr. Chairman, this deals with the HOV lanes in the State of New 
Jersey, particularly along Route I-287, and the fact is that they have 
caused tremendous problems in terms of airplane pollution, and they 
certainly have caused enormous traffic jams.
  So consistent with the language the gentleman has in the bill, I was 
concerned that, as currently drafted, it might be giving Federal 
bureaucrats too much discretion. For this reason, this amendment, I 
believe, does the

[[Page H6736]]

same thing with the precision which was originally intended. I think 
the change in language gives that precision. The amendment would simply 
require the Secretary of Transportation to grant New Jersey this 
commonsense waiver for I-287 that we already have for Route 80, so New 
Jersey assures the Secretary that removing these lanes is in the public 
interest.
  I think the legislative language will make a big difference for New 
Jersey, and it will return the decision-making process to the people of 
the State.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Franks and Mr. Frelinghuysen, have 
spoken to me about this. I think it is a wonderful amendment, and we 
accept it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I really 
appreciate the help, and so do the people of New Jersey.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the Department has some serious 
reservations about this provision. I expect we will adopt it tonight, 
but I would indicate to our friends from New Jersey, I think this is 
something we need to keep visiting about as we go to conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill insert the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to carry out the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration proposed rule (Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945) dated 
     June 17, 1998, which implements section 656(b) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

  Mr. BARR of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, with regard to 
Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996.
  In this important piece of legislation there was a section which 
requires States to produce driver's licenses that conform to Federal 
specifications.
  Recently, the Department of Transportation has promulgated a rule to 
provide the basis for a national identification card. It does this in 
part by directing that all Federal agencies may accept as proof of 
identity only a driver's license or identification document that 
conforms strictly to certain specific and uniform requirements; and 
that if a State driver's license issued by any State fails in any 
respect to conform to such requirements, it shall not be acceptable for 
any Federal purpose or by any Federal agency.
  The proposed rule also requires that all drivers' licenses or 
identification cards contain a Social Security number. I understand 
this was not the intention of that provision in the 1996 law, and that 
the author thereof, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), 
agrees that the rule proposed by the U.S. Transportation Department, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on June 17, 1998, in 
the Federal Register at pages 33219 to 33225, goes far beyond the 
intent of Section 656 of the 1996 legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, the 
legislation we passed was designed only to address necessary steps to 
deal with a specific problem, such as illegal immigration in the United 
States. It was not the intention of the bill or the Congress to 
establish a national ID, or to require that all States issue only 
driver's licenses in a format required by the Federal Government.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, is it the chairman's reading 
of the proposed rule that the Department of Transportation has gone far 
beyond the scope of congressional intent with respect to the rules of 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued in the 
Federal Register on June 17, 1998?

                              {time}  0010

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is correct. The proposed rule does go 
far beyond the intent and scope of section 656 of the 1996 legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the 
distinguished gentleman commit to work with me, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), and others to draft and enact legislation before the 
adjournment of this Congress which will prevent the establishment of a 
national ID card and properly limit rules and regulations issued by the 
administration so as to conform to the intent and purpose of section 
656 of the 1996 legislation?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
and as a coauthor of the language in section 656, I will work with the 
gentleman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and others who might be 
interested, to draft and enact legislation this Congress that will 
prevent the Department of Transportation, or any other agency or 
department of the executive branch, from establishing or requiring a 
national ID card that might result from the aforesaid rules proposed in 
the Federal Register on June 17, 1998.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for his commitment to work on this legislation which will address this 
serious situation.
  At this time, I will amend my amendment so that its only purpose will 
be to rescind the rules proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration in the Federal Register on June 17, 1998, at pages 33219 
to 33225, 23 CFR, part 1331, entitled State-Issued Driver's Licenses 
and Comparable Identification Documents; Proposed Rule.
  This will not hamper the legitimate purpose of the legislation 
proposed and adopted in 1996 as section 656 but will simply force the 
administration to go back and propose more limited rules consistent 
with the law and congressional intent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that this subject has been brought to 
the House floor tonight. I am very pleased that the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) has offered this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not solve the problem that we face here in the 
Congress and in this country, and that is the perpetual invasion of our 
privacy. It has been said even by the author of the immigration bill 
that the intent was not to have a national ID card, but if Members 
would read the regulations now being written by the Department of 
Transportation, it can be seen as nothing else.
  This indeed would be a national ID card. Last week, we dealt with the 
subject of medical IDs and a national data bank. Fortunately, something 
was put into the Patient Protection Act to stymie that a little bit.
  But there is an ongoing onslaught against personal privacy in this 
country. And in 1996, of course, when the immigration bill was passed, 
this authority was given. Quite frankly, even though I am quite pleased 
with the efforts that we have made here tonight, I think ultimately, if 
we are sincere about protecting the American people and guaranteeing 
that we do not have a national identification card, we will repeal that 
authority. Tonight we are not doing that, but at least we are putting a 
roadblock in these regulations now being written.
  I do not think this is an accident. I do not think that this is 
something that we should be surprised about. Too often, Congress writes 
regulations and gives authority to certain departments and agencies of 
government, and then

[[Page H6737]]

they go beyond the scope; and, too often, we do not pay much attention 
to it. Fortunately, under these circumstances, I think that it has been 
brought to the attention of the Congress and proper action has been 
started, so I am very pleased to be able to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the bigger picture, I think that we are going to 
continue to see this problem, because when a government gets very 
large, when a government gets very bureaucratic and when it is 
difficult to solve all the problems, the government naturally becomes 
more authoritarian and then the effort becomes how do we get the 
government to work efficiently? So there is a contest going on in the 
country today, and it is going to continue: the efficiency of 
government versus the privacy and the freedoms of the individual.
  I do not believe that we have been sent here to protect the interests 
of the State. We have been sent here to uphold the Constitution and 
protect the liberties of the individual. So this is a perfect example 
of a contest going on between the bureaucracy and the encroachment of 
big government versus the individual liberties of other American 
citizens.
  So I am pleased with this amendment and, hopefully, it will pass. I 
think we have to continue to be vigilant about privacy in our medical 
records and the abuse of the social security number as the national 
identifier. There are many, many pieces of legislation; there are 40 
times we have authorized in this Congress for the social security 
number to be used as the identifier. It was never intended that way.
  So I plead with my fellow colleagues to continue to be vigilant and 
watch out and protect the individual liberty and the privacy of all of 
us.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that, after midnight, we raise the 
question here that goes not to the heart of the transportation bill 
before us but to questions of the implementation of the immigration 
bill.
  I am very concerned when I hear some of my colleagues who I think 
very much would like to see a national ID card raise the specter that 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking, which 
is pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
Responsibility Act of 1996, is in fact that they are concerned about 
that, when they are raising the rules based upon the mandate that the 
legislation had.
  Now, what does a mandate do? It says that a State-issued driver's 
license and comparable identification document provides that a Federal 
Agency may only accept as proof of identity a driver's license or 
identification document that conforms to specific requirements in 
accordance with regulations to be issued by the Secretary of 
Transportation.
  Now if the Department of Transportation, under the act that was 
passed and offered by the majority, can never issue the rulemaking to 
give the standard, then the person who is a permanent legal resident of 
the United States does not have a vehicle by which, in fact, to show 
identification and, therefore, be able to give themselves the 
opportunity to access whatever it is governmentally that they wish, 
whether it be a program or otherwise.
  So I would like to ask, if I may, the sponsor of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), if he would be willing to respond to 
a question. My question is, is not the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration just doing the rulemaking that the legislation which I 
believe you and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) supported?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, that is the question. I would say 
to the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears that the rule that they 
are proposing goes beyond the intent.
  Mr. Chairman, I just talked with the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and based on a colloquy that he and I are 
going to ask unanimous consent to engage in, we will be withdrawing the 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will be withdrawing the 
amendment?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Yes, based on a colloquy that I will have with 
the gentleman from Virginia.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I accept that is what will happen. Would 
this amendment not, in essence, be legislating on an appropriations 
bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot rule on that at this point, because 
the amendment is already pending.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise if the amendment is 
appropriately drafted for the purposes of pursuing this appropriations 
bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot respond to that as a parliamentary 
inquiry. The amendment is before us.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it basically would be legislative in intent, if it is 
not actually legislation on an appropriations bill. I ask the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) if he would withdraw his amendment. It is 12:20 
at night. Nobody has seen it.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have offered to do is set up a meeting next 
week with NHTSA. The minority staff will be there. The majority staff 
will be there. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith) will be there. And we will sit down and see what 
we can do to work it out.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, based on the fact that there may 
be something problematic in the language in that we are dealing here 
with fiscal year 1998-1999 appropriated funds, the rule that the 
administration is proposing, as I understand it, would go into effect 
next month. That is August of 1998. And while it certainly would be 
implemented over a period of time, it would clearly bring it into 
fiscal year 1999.
  Therefore, I think that the amendment is appropriate. It is not 
legislating. It would simply be to stop appropriated funds for fiscal 
year 1999 from being used to continue to implement this rule, which 
will go into fiscal year 1999 in its implementation.
  However, in light of that and in light of the assurances of the 
gentleman from Virginia, whom I certainly respect, and in light of the 
fact that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
the author of the original language, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith), will work with us next week in setting up a meeting with the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to see if we can work 
out an agreement with them and, if not, thereafter propose a 
legislative remedy for this, I will at this time withdraw the 
amendment.

                              {time}  0020

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of supporting the transportation 
appropriations bill and also to enter into a colloquy with the ranking 
minority member.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee's recommendation for the Federal Highway 
Administration's research program includes $15.2 million for research 
into high performance materials and bridge systems which could be 
applied to improve our Nation's infrastructure. This amount is $1.8 
million less than the $17 million included in the Senate transportation 
bill.
  The Senate bill also includes $1 million for wood composite research 
and $1 million for the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood 
Composite Center. This is an exciting program that has yielded many 
innovations with wood composites and their applications to our 
country's transportation needs, from better bridges to lighter trucks.

[[Page H6738]]

  When the House conferees meet with the Senate conferees on this bill, 
I ask the conferees' support for the Senate's provisions providing $2 
million for this important research which will go a long way in making 
bridges of all kinds more economical.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Maine for bringing this important issue before the House. I agree that 
we need to aggressively pursue new technologies that will make our 
transportation infrastructure safer, more economical and friendlier 
towards the environment.
  As the House and Senate conferees meet, I assure the gentleman that 
as the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, I will certainly do 
all that I can to ensure that the funding for this important activity 
receives full consideration.
  Mr. BALDACCI. I thank the gentleman for those comments and for his 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? The Clerk 
will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999''.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, some have argued that the TEA-21 highway 
and transit firewalls somehow have caused the appropriators to 
underfund other discretionary spending. This is false. The truth is 
that TEA-21 provided more, not less, funds for remaining discretionary 
appropriations.
  First, all the increased spending for the highway and transit 
firewalls was fully reflected in the firewalls and fully offset by 
other, saving provisions in TEA-21.
  Second, the current, overall discretionary spending caps were only 
adjusted downward by the amount of highway and transit spending 
provided in 1998.
  In other words, existing discretionary spending was not reduced by 
the amount of firewall spending, but rather by the amount that the 
appropriators had previously provided for FY 1998.
  Third, there is no longer any pressure on the existing discretionary 
spending caps to fund increased highway trust fund spending.
  Without a doubt, if these new highway and transit firewalls had not 
been created, there would have been inordinate pressure within the 
existing caps to increase trust fund spending above fiscal year 1998 
levels.
  Fourth, because of differences in CBO's and OMB's scoring of the 
discretionary cap adjustments an extra $900 million of outlays was 
added to the appropriations Committee's 302 allocation for fiscal year 
1999.
  Over the next five years, the effect of this adjustment is between $4 
and $5 billion.
  The fact is that TEA-21 made more funds available for remaining 
discretionary programs. If certain non-firewall transportation programs 
remain underfunded, the cause is not TEA-21, but rather decisions by 
the appropriators to spend the money elsewhere.
  Finally, the argument that other transportation programs are 
underfunded because the appropriators cannot reduce firewalled spending 
to increase other, general fund programs has already been rejected by 
the Congress and the President.
  The sole purpose of the firewalls--which I remind my colleagues was a 
compromise from the House position of taking the highway trust fund 
off-budget--was to guarantee that future gasoline taxes are spent for 
their intended purposes.
  TEA-21 settled for once and for all that this Congress will no longer 
continue the charade of masking the size of general fund spending 
through raiding the highway trust fund.
  In conclusion, I compliment the appropriations committee for fully 
funding and complying with the highway and transit firewalls in TEA-21. 
Let us not confuse this good work with faulty arguments about the 
effect of the firewalls on remaining discretionary spending.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY99 
Transportation Appropriations measure. This bill incorporates the 
funding levels agreed to in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) and will help ensure that our nation's roads and 
highways remain safe and that our transportation needs will be met into 
the next century. I am especially pleased with this legislation because 
it represents the fact that we will now be using our gas tax receipts 
for their intended purpose.
  In addition, I applaud Chairman Wolf and Representative Sabo for 
including $609 million in the bill for assistance to Amtrak. Amtrak is 
of vital importance to my constituents and to countless Americans who 
rely on its service to this country, and continued funding for Amtrak 
will help these dedicated men and women retain their jobs.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am 
acutely aware of the constant need to fund maintenance and construction 
projects in order to provide the safe, efficient, and high quality 
transportation services on which Americans have come to depend. I 
believe this bill will help us do that, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support of H.R. 4328.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the distinguished 
Subcommittee Chairman from Virginia for all the work he has done on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in April of this year, two jetliners nearly collided 
over LaGuardia Airport in New York. Thousands of my constituents fly to 
and from LaGuardia each and every year. A subsequent investigation led 
the FAA to order a two-hour ``refresher'' training for their air 
traffic controllers, but I am concerned that this incident may only be 
the tip of the iceberg and may reflect similar problems at other 
airports around the nation.
  Over the last 4 years the FAA has delayed, reduced or eliminated 
planned air traffic controller proficiency and operational training at 
many airports, including New York, Miami, Washington DC, Atlanta and 
Kansas City. Although the Congress has in the past fully funded the FAA 
request for safety training, the agency has for various reasons not 
fulfilled their own training plans.
  In Fiscal Year 1996, Congress included report language in the 
Transportation Appropriations conference report that recognized this 
problem and urged the FAA to address the issue. However, over the last 
several fiscal years, the FAA has still not fully funded their own 
training plans. This lack of funding has led to a high number of 
operational errors among air traffic controllers where that refresher 
training has not taken place.
  I am concerned that perhaps the Administration is not asking the 
Congress for sufficient funding to adequately address this training. 
With a growing number of new controllers, the FAA has identified its 
needs but the Administration has failed to include enough funding in 
its budget request to make up for the previous year's funding 
shortfall.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my strong position that the Other Body's report 
language on this topic should be accepted during the House-Senate 
conference on this legislation. In my view the Senate report language 
will help make our skies safer for the traveling public.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with my 
colleagues a program that is very important to my district and to the 
State of Oregon. In the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, I requested $1.5 million be 
appropriated to the Oregon Department of Transportation for a joint 
effort with the Aviation Life Flight Network in Oregon. Although H.R. 
4328 does not provide funds for this program, this is a very worthwhile 
program, and one that is worthy of congressional support.
  Oregon's Aeronautics Section, in partnership with Life Flight 
Network, a consortium of Oregon Health Care Providers, proposes to 
establish global position systems (GPS) instrument and weather systems 
at rural airports throughout the State of Oregon. By using GPS 
navigation through mountain passes and rural areas, medical helicopters 
would be able to serve rural communities and remote areas during 
periods of inclement weather. My district, the Second District of 
Oregon, is very rural in nature and has weather extremes that sometimes 
make it difficult to evacuate people in medical emergencies. The $1.5 
million I requested for this program would go a long way to alleviate 
these problems. In addition, local businesses would be able to use 
local facilities for corporate and business air passenger and air 
freight purposes.
  I ask that the Conferees on the House/Senate Conference Report for 
H.R. 4328 fund the $1.5 million needed for this very important program.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express grave concern 
about what I believe to be devastating funding reductions for the U.S. 
Coast Guard in this bill.
  In my view, the decision to cut $29 million from overall FY98 levels, 
and to shift assets away from some of its most essential missions, will 
jeopardize the Coast Guard's capacity to safeguard environmental 
resources and maritime safety. In this context, the additional $15 
million reduction in the operating account would seriously impair the 
Coast Guard's marine conservation, fisheries law enforcement and 
search-and-rescue capabilities.

[[Page H6739]]

  I am especially dismayed that these cuts were accompanied by an $33.8 
million increase in funding for drug interdiction. While I strongly 
support efforts to intercept illegal narcotics, by land and sea, I was 
astonished to learn that this new commitment would come at the expense 
of long-established Coast Guard ice-breaking and fisheries management 
duties--through budget offsets totaling $20 million and $13.8 million, 
respectively.
  The historical pattern is all too familiar. Between operational 
cutbacks and expanded responsibilities, coastal communities will--once 
again--start calculating the odds of Coast Guard personnel reductions, 
decreased hours at sea and station closings.
  As I read this legislation, there are no provisions relieving the 
Coast Guard of responsibility for delivering fuel to the Air force in 
Antarctica, or for its patrols to protect endangered right whales. Nor 
do I see directives relating to the billions of dollars in damage 
prevented to private property--or to its most critical mission, search-
and-rescue. In the last decade, the Coast Guard has responded to a 
half-million SOS calls, and saved nearly 45,000 lives in the process. 
These services are somehow supposed to continue, unimpeded by crippling 
cutbacks.
  The Congress cannot expect to have it both ways. We must decide what 
level of service we desire, then determine how--not whether--to pay for 
it. The consequences are matters, quite literally, of life and death.
  I appreciate the difficulties facing appropriators under current 
budget constraints, but the committee faced the same pressure while 
increasing overall Transportation Department funding by 11 percent. The 
FAA is slated for a four percent increase; the Federal Transit 
Administration will receive 11 percent more; Amtrak will increase by 12 
percent, and National Highway Safety Administration will get an 
additional 38 percent.
  I do not presume to question the merits of these activities, any more 
than I contest beefing up drug interdiction efforts. I do, however, 
object vigorously to do so by arbitrarily diverting resources from 
essential Coast Guard missions.
  The Subcommittee Chairman, in remarks accompanying the Committee 
Report, makes an impassioned argument for strengthened interdiction on 
the seas. What he fails to discuss, however, is the full cost of these 
added burdens--in terms of foregone icebreaking, fisheries enforcement 
or rescues at sea.
  This bill enriches Paul, without even considering the impact on 
Peter. In so doing, it unnecessarily and irresponsibly places at risk 
marine resources, private property and human life.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to the bill, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4328) 
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 510, he reported the bill, as 
amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with further sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 391, 
nays 25, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               YEAS--391

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--25

     Burr
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Crane
     Graham
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kucinich
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Cox
     Dingell
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     LaTourette
     McDade
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0042

  Mr. JONES and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________