Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 174, H.R. 535.

Mr. HATFIELD. I unanimous consent that the bill be deemed considered, read the third time, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Montana we still do not have a copy of the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Burns amendment in order to complete the Pressler amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill has been a challenge--a challenge to meet the over arching goal of deficit reduction while at the same time providing the resources necessary to address the Nation's infrastructure needs. The 602(b) allocation for this bill is $12.4 billion in budget authority and $36.561 billion in outlays--$200 million less in budget authority and $386 million less in outlays than the House allocation. My colleagues should know that the bill as reported from the committee is right at its 602(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. So any amendment that affects either budget authority or outlays needs to be budget neutral. A number of my colleagues are unhappy that we could not do more either for individual projects or for transportation in general. I too wish that more could have been done. The allocation was very restrictive; but, I want to make this very clear to the Members. The allocation for the subcommittee was higher than what was implied by the budget resolution that many have endorsed. If the committee had strictly adhered to the budget resolution's assumptions for Transportation, both budget authority and outlays would have been reduced even further. The budget resolution assumed approximately $20 million less in budget authority and $350 million less in outlays. The outlay assumption in the budget resolution would have been particularly difficult to satisfy. To accommodate the outlay assumptions of the resolution, the bill would have had to totally eliminate transit operating assistance, or to put it in perspective, reduce the Federal aid highway obligation ceiling by 13 percent. I should point out to my colleagues, the Transportation Subcommittee has limited control over outlays in a given year. Over 69 percent of the total outlays are from prior years' commitments and on top of that another $330 million is outside the subcommittee's control because highway authorizing legislation has made the minimum allocation program and the highway demonstration projects exempt from any spending controls. The net effect is that over 70 percent of the bill's outlays occur regardless of what we do in the current year--and next year we will be further restricted in funding new programs. Transportation is unique in another way because it pays for itself. This fiscal year, 1995, almost 76 percent of the budget is financed through the various trust funds. The bill before you maintains the user fee concept. However, in order to address the fiscal year 1996 constraints and to be in a better position for fiscal year 1997 there are a number of provisions included that deal with the financial operations of the Department and the need for capital and continued investment in the Nation's infrastructure, such as highway trust fund receipts are not increasing, yet demand for surface transportation is increasing, therefore, I am recommending the creation of State infrastructure banks; in order to assist the FAA better manage its personnel and equipment purchases, bill language on reforming those areas is included; to help States avoid a 20-percent reduction in new contract authority for highways in 1996, bill language is proposed to give States greater flexibility over the use of their highway dollars. And, finally there is direction to the FAA to recover fully the costs for providing services and for administrating various programs. These proposals have a direct effect on the Department's financial wherewithal, which should be of great concern to all of us. These proposals are not about jurisdiction They are about providing the tools and the resources that the Department of Transportation needs now and more importantly for the future. We cannot idly sit by. I hope that the financial and management proposals in this bill are supported by the full Senate. I welcome the debate that these proposals have generated. Because they are so important and affect all the modes of transportation, I thought that they needed consideration and input by the full Senate. As a colleague said, many of these are not new-- some of the reforms proposed were first requested by former Secretary of Transportation, Elizabeth Dole. Some of the committee's recommendations have already had the desired effect, and that is immediate consideration. I hope that the outcome will be that the authorizing committees in concert with the Appropriations Committee will propose legislation that makes changes in the way that the Department of Transportation currently does business. I have been very encouraged by the time and energy that members of the Commerce Committee immediately gave to the proposals in the aviation area; and, I am hopeful that we can reach some agreement in that area. Some form of aviation financing legislation must be enacted this session. On the other provisions, which are offered in response to transportation's overall fiscal situation, I ask for your support. I have also heard concerns expressed about the funding level for the ICC. The bill before you contains funding to pay for ICC functions that will transfer to DOT, $4.7 million; and funding to pay for ICC termination costs, $13.4 million. These funds were included without judgment as to what may succeed the present commission, which will be determined by authorizing legislation. I want to say that, Mr. President, that we have worked concurrently and in close harmony with the authorizing committees, both the Commerce Committee and Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked most particularly with Senator Chafee, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and with Senator McCain, the subcommittee chairman, on aviation in the Committee on Commerce. We are hopeful that these matters will move speedily to a conclusion. Again, I emphasize that we are not attempting to usurp jurisdiction, because it is not a jurisdictional question, it is a survival question, in many instances, and a question of what our future infrastructure is going to be. Mr. President, I would like to yield to my close associate and former chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, for any opening statements he wishes to make relating to this bill. Then I will ask that the next moment be reserved for adopting the committee amendments, en bloc, and with a tabling motion followed on one of the committee amendments. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who served ably as the former chairman of this subcommittee--and I had the privilege of working with him over a number of years--for his eloquent description of the bill and for his wonderful support and cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor. I made comments about that previously in my opening remarks. But he was at that time unable to be here on the floor present, and I wanted him to hear it directly from me. Committee Amendments Madam President, I have some unanimous consent requests that have been cleared on both sides. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, except for section 352 of the bill, page 74, lines 1 through 8.

Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment and that no points of order be waived thereon.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to table the committee amendment, section 352 on page 74, lines 1 through 8 at this time. And I might just briefly state this committee amendment that was to give authority to the airport agencies; that is, the local airport authorities, to raise the passenger fees from $3 to $5. We got a lot of response from those effected carriers and other interested parties. We think we have their attention. So I now move to table.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I am happy at this time to yield to the Senator from Colorado, who I understand has some matters to bring before the body. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Let me put this in context, if I might. A few years ago when we adopted the ISTEA legislation, before that time we had designated these various projects in report language. At that time, the authorizing committee identified those projects within the bill language legislating them into law. They identified a total of $666 million to be expended annually for those designated programs in locations, descriptions, and costs, full-funding agreements and so forth. The President sends up his budget by which the Department of Transportation expresses its views as to those projects most able to undertake the construction, all of the preliminaries being completed, and agreements having been signed by the Department of Transportation with those local entities. When you get to a cap on a figure in any account, you obviously then are in a position to have to make selections and priorities. We also find that when that legislative authorization has taken place, events tend to change those projects as you get down the road into them. As an example, Los Angeles has been having some recent difficulty in its project relating to its contractor, and as I understand that is under investigation. Therefore, things are kind of on hold. If we did not have this earmarking, as the Senator calls it, which really more precisely to try to distinguish it from other kinds of earmarks, we set these priorities within that $660 million, we would not have $688 million this year. We were able to take some unobligated funds to add to that to do a little bit more. By the way, we had $1.1 billion in requests from Members within this category of the $660 million cap. So what we have to do then is to identify those in dollars concurrent to those changing roles or changing rates of action and progress, and so forth. And that is why these are listed by certain number of dollars. Let me take as another example both New York and Portland. In Portland, OR, my home State, there was a shortfall in the next to the last increment to complete the light rail system in my city of Portland. There were a couple of years of shortfalls in terms of the moneys appropriated by the House and Senate, and so forth, which put a time lag into that project that had full funding and contracting already established. And so by being able to add a little over the President's request of $106 million, this catches both Portland and New York City up to date, which means we can complete the Portland project with one last increment in 1997. Otherwise, we might be forced into 1998, which expands the costs, of course, because of the time extension. So those are the kinds of judgments we are called upon as a committee to make to maximize the dollars for these programs that we are committed to by contract, authorized and designated in the ISTEA legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Yes, that is correct. And there is a formula that you will find on the guideway modernization, fixed guideway modernization on page 178. Those are allocated on the basis of formula set by the Department and in the legislation, ISTEA legislation.

Mr. HATFIELD. I can assure you that the basis the committee has used is purely merit. I believe that we have similar capacity to executive agencies to establish priorities by merit within the body of the Congress. I do not assume that only the executive branch can set those standards by merit. You will also find that there is a great correlation between what has been determined as merit in the committee and what the administration has also declared on the basis of merit. In other words, our merit basis tends to affirm, one affirm the other.

Mr. HATFIELD. I am saying basically, yes, that the administration sends up its recommendations. Take my city of Portland, for instance-- one of the highest because we are moving toward that completion offered by the administration. The addition between what the administration's level is and what we made on a basis of merit and maximizing the dollars and trying to complete the project within the existing contract was to add for the shortfalls of 2 previous years, and certainly I think that is within the prerogative of the congressional body and I think it is based on merit.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 2328 (Purpose: To transfer additional funds for mass transit operating assistance) Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the body, Mr. President, we are attempting at this time--the manager, Senator Lautenberg, and myself--to ascertain what amendments are being expected for the Transportation appropriations bill. I am told by the majority leader that we will expect to finish this appropriations bill tonight. If we can now get the cooperation of our colleagues to indicate if they are expecting to offer an amendment, and if they are expecting to ask for a rollcall on such amendment, at this point in time I have five amendments that may be offered on our side of the aisle. Senator Roth has two amendments listed. I would estimate we may have rollcall votes tonight on completing some of these amendments. Senator Lautenberg and I have indicated that we want to move on those which we do not expect to have rollcall votes and take up time to complete those amendments. I am not saying there is a window because I do not have authority to establish the window. But, nevertheless, we will try to complete those first for which we do not expect and do not ask for a rollcall vote. We are making inquiry of the majority leader if he could consider stacking votes for tomorrow, and we could offer a number of amendments yet to be offered and complete those amendments tonight. We do not have that information at this point. So, Mr. President, I hope that Senator Pressler, Senator Roth, Senator Byrd, and Senator Chafee might be willing to offer amendments now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, when the discussion has been exhausted, I will move to table the Harkin amendment. I think the Senator from Iowa realizes very clearly that it was included in the subcommittee chairman's mark. And the full committee took action to strike it following communications from the authorizers on that issue. This had been put in the bill 2 years ago, as I recall, and then under a threatened veto by President Bush, it was withdrawn. So, consequently, I think it is one of those matters that we ought to not try to incorporate in the bill at this point.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor to the Domenici amendment regarding the Petroglyph National Monument during the consideration of the Interior bill and as adopted by the Senate.