THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
The FAA, the Coast Guard, and the Department's new Transportation Security Agency are all adequately, if not
[Page: S12333] GPO's PDF
Accordingly, the conference report meets the TEA 21 transit funding levels and increases the obligation limitation for highways above the TEA 21 firewalled levels. This funding commitment recognizes the priorities our colleagues in the Senate place on these accounts.
This is not only the first year of the Senator from Washington as the chair of this subcommittee, it is also the first year that Peter Rogoff has assisted her on the bill as the majority clerk. The committee and the Senator from Washington were both well served by Peter Rogoff--and his staff, Kate Hallahan, and Coast Guard Commander Cyndi Stowe.
I also commend Wally Burnett and Paul Doerrer of my staff on the committee. They worked hand in hand with the Democrats. I believe that is why we are where we are today, on the verge of adopting this conference report.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report and send it to the President for his signature, with the type of overwhelming margin we saw in the other body of a 371-to-11 vote on the adoption of this report.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has now turned to consideration of the conference report accompanying the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The bill includes a combination of appropriations and obligation limitations totaling $59.643 billion. That is $1.526 billion or 2.6 percent higher than the level provided for fiscal year 2001.
This is the ninth of the thirteen appropriations conference reports to come before the Senate. It is the ninth conference report that is within its 302 (B) allocation and it is fully consistent with the $686 billion bipartisan budget agreement on discretionary spending for the thirteen bills.
When the President signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, he placed into law a provision I and my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, championed here in the Senate. That provision served to guarantee that we appropriate every year on our Nation's highway system the funds that are received into the Highway Trust Fund through fuel taxes at the pump. I'm pleased to say that this year's Transportation bill, like every Transportation bill enacted since TEA-21, honors that commitment. Indeed, this year, for the first time since 1998, the Transportation bill provides more money for highways than was assumed in the highway guarantee--$100 million more. This is made possible since we still have an unobligated balance in the trust fund that existed before TEA-21 was enacted. So I commend the managers of the bill, Senators MURRAY and SHELBY, for making this significant investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure which is very much in need of repair, restoration, and expansion.
As long as I have had the pleasure of serving on the Transportation Subcommittee, it has always operated in an open and bipartisan manner. I am pleased to see that this tradition has continued under the leadership of Senator Murray. She and Senator Shelby have cooperated on all aspects of this bill. Both of them were required to take on the very contentious issue regarding the safety risks of Mexican trucks traveling on our highways . We debated that issue for several days here in the Senate and took a total of three cloture votes during that debate. Senators MURRAY and SHELBY stood their ground on the floor of the Senate and they prevailed. They then went to conference and negotiated a compromise with the House that maintains the strong safety requirements passed by the Senate but eliminates the threat of a veto against this bill.
I commend both managers and their respective staffs for a job well done and I encourage all members to support the conference report.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern regarding an element on the Fiscal Year 2002 Transportation Appropriation Conference Report. While I believe that this report, for the most part, spends funding according to statute and aids our Nation's transportation system, I am very concerned about the distribution of a major funding category.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA 21, was passed by the Congress in 1998 by overwhelming margins. For the first time receipts into the Highway Trust Fund were guaranteed to be spent for transportation purposes. This is accomplished through the annual calculation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, RABA, which makes adjustments in obligations to compensate for actual receipts into the Trust Fund versus the estimated authorization included in TEA 21 for the fiscal year.
While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has upheld the firewalls in this conference report, I find the redistribution of RABA funds to be unacceptable. Under TEA 21, RABA funds are to be distributed proportionately to the States through formula apportionments and also to allocated programs. This conference report is a radical departure from that and is a cause for great concern. States receive less money in this conference report than is called for under TEA 21. For that reason, this conference report is in violation of TEA 21.
I am dismayed to have to voice my concern regarding an otherwise beneficial transportation bill. However, as an author of TEA 21 and a believer in its principles, I am saddened to see TEA 21 violated at the expense of the States.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the transportation appropriations conference report.
First, I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee members for their determination to protect our highways from unsafe Mexican trucks.
I am not eager for trucks to freely cross from Mexico into the United States, for many reasons, but I am pleased that these trucks will at least be required to pass a safety compliance review.
The remainder of my comments have to do with the portion of the conference report that funds the Federal-aid highway program.
As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, with authorizing jurisdiction over the highway program, I am pleased with the overall funding level for Federal-aid highways .
As my colleagues will recall, one of the major accomplishments of TEA-21, passed by Congress in 1998, was that for the first time, gas tax revenues into the Highway Trust Funds were guaranteed to be promptly returned to the States for transportation spending.
This guarantee is accomplished with a provision in TEA-21 called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA as it is known.
RABA calculations compare actual gas tax receipts to our 1998 estimates, and guaranteed funding will go up or down depending on whether we have more or less revenue in the Highway Trust Fund than TEA-21 anticipated.
Reflecting several years of a strong economy, gas tax receipts have been billions of dollars more than we anticipated in 1998.
This year, as guaranteed by TEA-21, the Federal-aid highway program is funded at almost $33 billion ($32.954 billion); an increase of about $1.2 billion over last year; which includes $4.5 billion from RABA funds.
As I said, I am pleased with the success of these funding guarantees.
But I am concerned about the diversion of over $1.5 billion to project earmarks instead of being distributed fairly under formulas developed in TEA-21.
There are 590 project earmarks from the Highway Trust Fund, and 55 more highway projects taken from the general fund.
I want to alert my colleagues to such extensive earmarking contained in this appropriations report.
This earmarking is mostly within discretionary programs created in TEA-21 and mostly funded with the RABA funds.
Almost a billion dollars in RABA funds are diverted away from the fair distribution that we agreed to in TEA-21, and are used for earmarks in this conference report.
This money does not get distributed evenly as authorized in TEA-21, but there are winners and losers.
Some States get a lot of this money for projects, some get very little.
[Page: S12334] GPO's PDF
This process completely distorts the funding formulas we agreed to in TEA-21.
It also distorts the discretionary programs we created in TEA-21 for projects that meet specified criteria.
For instance, one pilot program we created to fund local projects that link transportation and community needs, for instance, was authorized in TEA-21 at $25 million per year.
This year, that program has become the catch-all for project earmarks, with a total of 219 projects at a cost of $276 million.
This is incredible that a small discretionary program has grown to an earmarking account at over 10 times the authorized amount.
The Appropriations Committee began earmarking these TEA-21 accounts a few years ago, over strong objections from the authorizing committees, and the practice has grown exponentially each year.
Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has begun the practice of soliciting project requests, creating a terrible dilemma where the number of projects that Members submit far exceed any authorized amounts.
And now Members have no choice but to compete for these discretionary funds in the appropriations process.
I admit to requesting projects for my State that received funding only because the pot of money grew so large, again from $25 million to $276 million.
The Appropriations Committee has gone further now than in recent years toward making so many transportation project funding decisions.
I believe strongly that State and local agencies are responsible for transportation planning and funding decisions.
I much prefer to send Highway Trust Fund dollars back to the States and I do not think Congress should pick and choose projects.
Where any fault for this situation rests with the framework in TEA-21, we will address it in the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Next year the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings on reauthorization, and I know that there is a lot of concern about this earmarking process.
I will vote in favor of this conference report for the good it contains, but I am compelled to register my strong objections to the hundreds of highway projects that do not belong in an appropriations bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take a moment while the transportation appropriations conference report is pending before us to express my concern, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Federal transit laws, about a provision in that report that attempts by report language to rewrite established law by reducing the Federal match for New Start transit projects from 80 percent to 60 percent. I am referring to language in the conference report that would ``direct [the Federal Transit Administration] not to sign any new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 that have a maximum federal share of higher than 60 percent.'' The Senate Banking Committee will begin to consider transit reauthorization issues next year. In the meantime, we have not had the benefit of any hearings or other public debate on this issue that would justify such report language.
Over 200 communities around the country, in urban, suburban, and rural areas, are considering light rail or other fixed guideway transit investments to meet their growing transportation needs. Recognizing this increasing demand, Congress in 1998 passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized almost $8.2 billion over 6 years to fund these New Starts projects.
The process for evaluating and awarding a Federal grant under the New Starts program is laid out in the Federal transit laws, found in section 5309 of Title 49, United States Code. Section 5309(h) specifies that ``[a Federal] grant for [a New Starts] project is for 80 percent of the net project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.'' By including language in the conference report--not in the statute--directing the FTA not to sign new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002 with a Federal share greater than 60 percent, the conferees are seeking to direct the FTA to act contrary to existing law.
Efforts to alter the Federal share would disrupt the level playing field established when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--ISTEA--set forth the 80 percent Federal cap for both highway and transit projects. ISTEA created a funding system by which communities could choose between transportation modes based on local needs, not based on the amount of Federal money available for the project. Seeking to lower the Federal match for transit projects while keeping the available highway match at 80 percent has the potential to skew the dynamics of choice for local communities.
It is true that there is very strong demand for New Starts funding . This is an issue which will be thoroughly considered as the transit laws are reauthorized in less than two years' time. Given the importance of the New Starts program to communities around the country, any proposal for dealing with this issue should be thoroughly considered. Report language directions to the FTA to act contrary to existing law are not a constructive contribution to this thorough consideration.
BUS REPLACEMENT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the conference report indicates that $5 million is provided for bus replacement in Iowa. But, it is my understanding that the intent was to allow these funds which have been allocated in a collaborative process involving the Iowa DOT and the local transit authorities to be used for bus replacement, bus expansion and for facility and equipment costs.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa is correct regarding the allocation of these funds. The intention is that the funds may be used for the authorized purposes that you noted.
FUNDING OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I say to Senator Murray, I would like to confirm my understanding that between the funding you have included in the conference report for the Transportation Security Administration and the funding included in the bill for the Federal Aviation Administration's research, engineering and development, there are sufficient funds for the expanded use of existing technology and research and development of new technology to improve aviation security. Is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. The funds appropriated are intended to cover those costs.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator to ask the time be equally divided and request he retain the remainder of the time of the chairman and ranking member toward the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Members, the majority leader has indicated that the vote on this matter will occur at 12:30 today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the quorum call will be charged as previously specified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time am I allowed?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I shall not take all 8 minutes. I understand there is a long line of people
[Page: S12335] GPO's PDF
First of all, I compliment the chairman and ranking member from the Senate side. I think they have done an extraordinary job on the conference report. I appreciate the work they have done on a range of issues. I think the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude.
I could spend some long period of time talking about the important provisions in this Transportation conference report. I know it took a long while to get to this point. Senator Murray, chairing the subcommittee on the Senate side, and others who have worked on this bill for some length of time undoubtedly wish this had been completed much earlier, but there were a series of things that prevented it from happening. In any event, at the end of this session we have a conference report that contains a lot of important items for this country's transportation system. I compliment Senator Shelby and Senator Murray and thank them for their work.
I do want to say--and I will say it briefly--there are two items in the conference report that provide some heartburn for me. The conference was required--or forced, I guess--to accept a provision dealing with the spending of $400,000 to
put airport signs up that describe National Airport really as Reagan National Airport. This conference report, because the House insisted, requires the Metro Airport Authority to spend $400,000 changing signs so that people will not be confused that they are at the airport when, in fact, the signs now say ``National Airport.''
George Will had a little something to say about that in a piece in April of this year. He said:
Travelers too oblivious to know they are at an airport, when large, clear signs say they are, should be given those little plastic pilot wings that are issued to unaccompanied children taken into protective custody. The conservatives want to get Congress to order Metro officials to spend several thousand dollars to add Reagan's name to the station signs and all references to the station on the maps.
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display