[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.
____________________