Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

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. 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. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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.

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. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, $103,000 has been appropriated for Operation Respond under the Federal Railroad Administration. No other funds have been appropriated.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JY98.006 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:

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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. If the gentlewoman needs to, we can have a joint meeting with the FAA administrator.

Frank Wolf

Speeches

Manage analytics