HR 2002 PP
‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; CONTRIBU-
TIONS FROM TITLE 23 APPORTIONMENTS.—(1) There are
authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund established under section 9502 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) to carry out this
section not more than $250,000,000 in Fiscal Year 1996.
‘‘(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 23, United
States Code, and Public Law 102–240 (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), a State may con-
tribute to an Infrastructure Bank up to 10 percent of fed-
eral funds apportioned under section 104(b) of title 23 that
are subject to the annual Federal-aid Highways obligation
limitation, except for interstate construction and congestion
mitigation and air quality program funds: Provided, That
a State shall not deposit funds that are suballocated under
title 23 or Public Law 102–240.
‘‘(3) A state may disburse funds appropriated under
paragraph (f)(1) of this subsection or contributed under
(f)(2) of this subsection to an Infrastructure Bank at a rate
that does not exceed the traditional rate of disbursement
for the Airport Improvement Program or the Federal-aid
Highway program, respectively.
‘‘(g) STATE ALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall appor-
tion to the chief executive of each State choosing to partici-
pate in an Infrastructure Bank the percentage allocation
HR 2002 PP
of the amount available under paragraph (e)(1) of this sec-
tion on the first day of the fiscal year, as follows:
‘‘State
Percentage
‘‘Alabama ..................................................................................................
1.26
‘‘Alaska ......................................................................................................
5.64
‘‘Arizona ....................................................................................................
2.20
‘‘Arkansas ..................................................................................................
0.74
‘‘California ................................................................................................
8.57
‘‘Colorado ..................................................................................................
2.31
‘‘Connecticut ..............................................................................................
0.74
‘‘Delaware .................................................................................................
0.04
‘‘District of Columbia ...............................................................................
0.01
‘‘Florida .....................................................................................................
6.49
‘‘Georgia ....................................................................................................
3.08
‘‘Hawaii ....................................................................................................
2.54
‘‘Idaho ........................................................................................................
0.75
‘‘Illinois .....................................................................................................
3.92
‘‘Indiana ....................................................................................................
1.46
‘‘Iowa .........................................................................................................
0.95
‘‘Kansas .....................................................................................................
0.68
‘‘Kentucky .................................................................................................
1.80
‘‘Louisiana ................................................................................................
1.34
‘‘Maine .......................................................................................................
0.66
‘‘Maryland .................................................................................................
0.84
‘‘Massachusetts ..........................................................................................
1.72
‘‘Michigan .................................................................................................
2.68
‘‘Minnesota ................................................................................................
1.59
‘‘Mississippi ..............................................................................................
0.76
‘‘Missouri ...................................................................................................
1.92
‘‘Montana ..................................................................................................
1.10
‘‘Nebraska ..................................................................................................
0.87
‘‘Nevada .....................................................................................................
1.46
‘‘New Hampshire ......................................................................................
0.28
‘‘New Jersey ..............................................................................................
1.16
‘‘New Mexico .............................................................................................
0.98
‘‘New York .................................................................................................
5.82
‘‘North Carolina ........................................................................................
2.92
‘‘North Dakota ..........................................................................................
0.61
‘‘Ohio .........................................................................................................
2.32
‘‘Oklahoma ................................................................................................
0.97
‘‘Oregon .....................................................................................................
1.15
‘‘Pennsylvania ..........................................................................................
3.29
‘‘Rhode Island ...........................................................................................
0.39
‘‘South Carolina .......................................................................................
1.05
‘‘South Dakota ..........................................................................................
0.55
‘‘Tennessee .................................................................................................
2.13
‘‘Texas ........................................................................................................
7.64
‘‘Utah .........................................................................................................
1.04
‘‘Vermont ...................................................................................................
0.22
‘‘Virginia ...................................................................................................
2.91
‘‘Washington .............................................................................................
1.78
‘‘West Virginia ..........................................................................................
0.58
‘‘Wisconsin ................................................................................................
1.41
HR 2002 PP
‘‘Wyoming .................................................................................................
0.74
‘‘Puerto Rico .............................................................................................
0.99
‘‘(g) UNITED STATES NOT OBLIGATED.—The deposit
of Federal apportionments into an Infrastructure Bank
shall not be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or obli-
gation on the part of the United States to any third party,
nor shall any third party have any right against the United
States for payment solely by virtue of the deposit. Further-
more, any security or debt financing instrument issued by
an Infrastructure Bank shall expressly state that the secu-
rity or instrument does not constitute a commitment, guar-
antee, or obligation of the United States.
‘‘(h) MANAGEMENT
OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—Sections
3335 and 6503 of title 31, United States Code, shall not
apply to funds used as a capital reserve under this section.
‘‘(i) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—For each fiscal
year, a State may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank an
amount not to exceed two percent of the Federal funds de-
posited into that Infrastructure Bank by the State to pro-
vide for the reasonable costs of administering the fund.
‘‘(j) RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION.—Of
the available contract authority balances under the account
entitled ‘‘Grants-In-Aid for Airports’’ in this Act,
$250,000,000 are rescinded.’’.
Ω174æSEC. 350. (a) In consultation with the employ-
ees of the Federal Aviation Administration and such non-
HR 2002 PP
governmental experts in personnel management systems as
he may employ, and notwithstanding the provisions of title
5, United States Code, and other Federal personnel laws,
the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and imple-
ment, not later than January 1, 1996, a personnel manage-
ment system for the Federal Aviation Administration that
addresses the unique demands on the agency’s workforce.
Such new system shall, at a minimum, provide for greater
flexibility in the hiring, training, compensation, and loca-
tion of personnel.
(b) The provisions of title 5, United States Code, shall
not apply to the new personnel management system devel-
oped and implemented pursuant to subsection (a), with the
exception of:
(1) Section 2302(b), relating to whistleblower
protection;
(2) Section 7118(b)(7), relating to limitations on
the right to strike;
(3) Section 7204, relating to antidiscrimination;
(4) Chapter 73, relating to suitability, security,
and conduct;
(5) Chapter 81, relating to compensation for
work injury; and
(6) Chapters 83–85, 87, and 89, relating to re-
tirement and insurance coverage.
HR 2002 PP
(c) This section shall take effect on April 1, 1996.
Ω175æSEC. 351. (a) In consultation with such non-
governmental experts in acquisition management systems
as he may employ, and notwithstanding provisions of Fed-
eral acquisition law, the Secretary of Transportation shall
develop and implement, not later than January 1, 1996,
an acquisition management system for the Federal Aviation
Administration that addresses the unique needs of the agen-
cy and, at a minimum, provides for more timely and cost-
effective acquisitions of equipment and materials.
(b) The following provisions of Federal acquisition law
shall not apply to the new acquisition management system
developed and implemented pursuant to subsection (a):
(1) Title III of the Federal Property and Admin-
istrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 252–266);
(2) The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
(3) The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994 (Public Law 103–355);
(4) The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.), except that all reasonable opportunities to be
awarded contracts shall be provided to small business
concerns and small business concerns owned and con-
trolled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals;
HR 2002 PP
(5) The Competition in Contracting Act;
(6) Subchapter V of Chapter 35 of title 31, relat-
ing to the procurement protest system;
(7) The Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act
(40 U.S.C. 759); and
(8) The Federal Acquisition Regulation and any
laws not listed in (a) through (e) of this section pro-
viding authority to promulgate regulations in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation.
(c) This section shall take effect on April 1, 1996.
Ω176æSEC. 352. Funds provided in this Act for bo-
nuses and cash awards for employees of the Department of
Transportation shall be reduced by $752,852, which limits
fiscal year 1995 obligation authority to no more than
$25,875,075: Provided, That this provision shall be applied
to funds for Senior Executive Service bonuses, merit pay,
and other bonuses and cash awards.
Ω177æSEC. 353. Not to exceed $850,000 of the funds
provided in this Act for the Department of Transportation
shall be available for the necessary expenses of advisory
committees.
Ω178æSEC. 354. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary may use funds appropriated under
this Act, or any subsequent Act, to administer and imple-
ment the exemption provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to
HR 2002 PP
adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure require-
ments of 49 CFR Part 580 for any class or category of vehi-
cles that the Secretary deems appropriate.
Ω179æSEC. 355. (a) The Federal Aviation Administra-
tion Technical Center located at the Atlantic City Inter-
national Airport in Pomona, New Jersey, shall be known
and designated as the ‘‘William J. Hughes Technical Cen-
ter’’.
(b) Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
Aviation Administration Technical Center referred to in
section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William
J. Hughes Technical Center’’.
Ω180æSEC. 356. None of the funds in this Act may
be used to close any multi-mission small boat stations or
subunits: Provided, That the Secretary may implement any
management efficiencies within the small boat unit system,
such as modifying the operational posture of units or reallo-
cating resources as necessary to ensure the safety of the mar-
itime public nationwide, provided that no stations or
subunits may be closed.
Ω181æSEC. 357. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, of the $29,596,000 available for obligation author-
ized by item 21 of the table in section 1105(f) of the Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub-
HR 2002 PP
lic Law 102–240; 105 Stat. 2038), $6,000,000 shall be made
available for obligation to carry out surface transportation
projects in Louisiana. Of this amount, $5,000,000 shall be
made available for completion of the I–10 and I–610 project
in New Orleans, Louisiana and $1,000,000 shall be made
available for three highway studies of which $250,000 is
provided for a study to widen US 84/LA 6 traversing north
Louisiana, $250,000 is provided for a study to widen La.
Hwy 42 from US Hwy. 61 to La. Hwy. 44 and extend
to I–10 in East Ascension Parish and $500,000 is provided
for a study to connect Interstate 20 on both sides of the
Ouachita River.
Ω182æSEC. 358. TRANSFER
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL
PROPERTY IN NEW JERSEY.—The first section of the Act
entitled ‘‘An Act transferring certain Federal property to
the city of Hoboken, New Jersey’’, approved September 27,
1982 (Public Law 97–268, 96 Stat. 1140), is amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the
end, and
(2) by striking ‘‘Stat. 220), and’’ in subsection
(b) and all that follows through ‘‘New Jersey; concur-
rent with’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Stat. 220);
concurrent with’’.
Ω183æSEC. 359. ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FA-
CILITIES.
HR 2002 PP
(a) REDUCTION IN FACILITIES ENERGY COSTS.—The
head of each agency for which funds are made available
under this Act shall take all actions necessary to achieve
during fiscal year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal
year 1995 levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used
by the agency.
(b) USE OF COST SAVINGS.—An amount equal to the
amount of cost savings realized by an agency under sub-
section (a) shall remain available for obligation through the
end of fiscal year 1997, without further authorization or
appropriation, as follows:
(1) CONSERVATION MEASURES.—Fifty percent of
the amount shall remain available for the implemen-
tation of additional energy conservation measures
and for water conservation measures at such facilities
used by the agency as are designated by the head of
the agency.
(2) OTHER
PURPOSES.—Fifty percent of the
amount shall remain available for use by the agency
for such purposes as are designated by the head of the
agency, consistent with applicable law.
(c) REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31,
1996, the head of each agency described in subsection
(a) shall submit a report to Congress specifying the
HR 2002 PP
results of the actions taken under subsection (a) and
providing any recommendations concerning how to
further reduce energy costs and energy consumption
in the future.
(2) CONTENTS.—Each report shall—
(A) specify the total energy costs of the fa-
cilities used by the agency;
(B) identify the reductions achieved; and
(C) specify the actions that resulted in the
reductions.
Ω184æSEC. 360. STUDY OF AIR FARES.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) ADJUSTED AIR FARE.—The term ‘‘adjusted
air fare’’ means an actual air fare that is adjusted
for distance traveled by a passenger.
(2) AIR CARRIER.—The term—
(A) ‘‘air carrier’’ has the same meaning as
in section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States
Code; and
(B) the terms ‘‘regional commuter air car-
rier’’, and ‘‘major air carrier’’ shall have the
meanings provided those terms by the Secretary.
HR 2002 PP
(3) AIRPORT.—The term ‘‘airport’’ has the same
meaning as in section 40102(9) of title 49, United
States Code.
(4) COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘com-
mercial air carrier’’ means an air carrier that pro-
vides air transportation for commercial purposes (as
determined by the Secretary).
(5) HUB AIRPORT.—The term ‘‘hub airport’’ has
the same meaning as in section 41731(a)(2) of title
49, United States Code.
(6) LARGE HUB AIRPORT.—The term ‘‘large hub
airport’’—
(A) shall have the meaning provided that
term by the Secretary; and
(B) does not include a small hub airport (as
such term is defined in section 41731(a)(5) of
title 49, United States Code).
(7) NONHUB AIRPORT.—The term ‘‘nonhub air-
port’’ has the same meaning as in section 41731(a)(4)
of title 49, United States Code.
(8) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means
the Secretary of Transportation.
(b) STUDY OF AIR FARES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study to—
HR 2002 PP
(A) compare air fares paid (calculated as
both actual and adjusted air fares) for air trans-
portation on flights conducted by commercial air
carriers—
(i) between—
(I) nonhub airports located in
small communities; and
(II) large hub airports; and
(ii) between large hub airports; and
(B) analyze—
(i) the extent to which passenger serv-
ice that is provided from nonhub airports is
provided on—
(I) regional commuter commercial
air carriers; or
(II) major air carriers;
(ii) the type of aircraft employed in
providing passenger service at nonhub air-
ports; and
(iii) whether there is competition
among commercial air carriers with respect
to the provision of air service to passengers
from nonhub airports.
HR 2002 PP
(2) FINDINGS.—The Secretary shall include in
the study conducted under this subsection findings
made by the Secretary concerning—
(A) whether passengers who use commercial
air carriers to and from rural areas (as defined
by the Secretary) pay a disproportionately
greater price for that transportation than do
passengers who use commercial air carriers be-
tween urban areas (as defined by the Secretary);
(B) the nature of competition, if any in
rural markets (as defined by the Secretary) for
commercial air carriers;
(C) whether a relationship exists between
higher air fares and competition among commer-
cial air carriers for passengers travelling on jet
aircraft from small communities (as defined by
the Secretary) and, if such relationship exists,
the nature of that relationship;
(D) the number of small communities that
have lost air service as a result of the deregula-
tion of commercial air carriers with respect to
air fares;
(E) the number of small communities served
by airports with respect to which, after the date
on which the deregulation referred to in subpara-
HR 2002 PP
graph (D) occurred, jet air service was replaced
by turbo prop air service; and
(F) with respect to the replacement in serv-
ice referred to in subparagraph (E), any cor-
responding decreases in available seat capacity
for consumers at the airports referred to in that
subparagraph.
(c) REPORT.—Upon completion of the study conducted
under subsection (b), but not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
a report on the study and the findings of the Secretary to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate.
Ω185æSEC. 361. THE RAILROAD SAFETY INSTITUTE.
Of the money appropriated to the United States De-
partment of Transportation for Transportation Planning,
Research and Development, $1,000,000 shall be made avail-
able to establish and operate the Institute for Railroad Safe-
ty as authorized by the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994.
Ω186æSEC. 362. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING UNIT-
ED STATES/JAPAN AVIATION DISPUTE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the Governments of the United States and
Japan entered into a bilateral aviation agreement in
1952 that has been modified periodically to reflect
HR 2002 PP
changes in the aviation relationship between the two
countries;
(2) in 1994 the total revenue value of passenger
and freight traffic for United States air carriers be-
tween the United States and Japan was approxi-
mately $6,000,000,000;
(3) the United States/Japan bilateral aviation
agreement guarantees three United States carriers
‘‘beyond rights’’ that authorize them to fly into
Japan, take on additional passengers and cargo, and
then fly to another country;
(4) the United States/Japan bilateral aviation
agreement requires that, within 45 days of filing a
notice with the Government of Japan, the Government
of Japan must authorize United States air carriers to
serve routes guaranteed by their ‘‘beyond rights’’;
(5) United States air carriers have made sub-
stantial economic investment in reliance upon the ex-
pectation their rights under the United States/Japan
bilateral aviation agreement would be honored by the
Government of Japan;
(6) the Government of Japan has violated the
United States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement by
preventing United States air carriers from serving
HR 2002 PP
routes clearly authorized by their ‘‘beyond rights’’;
and
(7) the refusal by the Government of Japan to
respect the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral
aviation agreement is having severe repercussions on
United States air carriers and, in general, customers
of these United States air carriers.
(b) ACTION REQUESTED.—The Congress—
(1) calls upon the Government of Japan to honor
and abide by the terms of the United States/Japan bi-
lateral aviation agreement and immediately authorize
United States air cargo and passenger carriers which
have pending route requests relating to their ‘‘beyond
rights’’ to immediately commence service on the re-
quested routes;
(2) calls upon the President of the United States
to identify strong and appropriate forms of counter-
measures that could be taken against the Government
of Japan for its egregious violation of the United
States/Japan bilateral aviation agreement; and
(3) calls upon the President of the United States
to promptly impose against the Government of Japan
whatever countermeasures are necessary and appro-
priate to ensure the Government of Japan abides by
HR 2002 PP
the terms of the United States/Japan bilateral avia-
tion agreement.
Ω187æSEC. 363. The Secretary of Transportation is
hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement
modifying the agreement entered into pursuant to Section
339 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agen-
cies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102–388) to
conform such agreement to the provisions of Section 336
of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103–331). Nothing
in this section changes the amount of the previous appro-
priation in section 339, and the line of credit provided for
shall not exceed an amount supported by the previous ap-
propriation. In implementing either Section 339 or Section
336, the Secretary may enter into an agreement requiring
an interest rate that is higher than that specified therein.
Ω188æSEC. 364. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN HIGHWAY
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
(a) NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMIT-
TEE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 404 of title 23, Unit-
ed States Code, is repealed.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for
chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, is amended
by striking the item relating to section 404.
HR 2002 PP
(b) COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGU-
LATORY REVIEW PANEL.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Section 31134 of title 49,
United States Code, is repealed.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(A) The analysis for subchapter III of chap-
ter 311 of title 49, United States Code, is amend-
ed by striking the item relating to section 31134.
(B) Section 31140 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended—
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and
the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Regu-
latory Review Panel’’; and
(ii) in subsection (b)—
(I) in paragraph (2), by striking
‘‘the Panel or’’; and
(II) by striking ‘‘the Panel’’ each
place it appears and inserting ‘‘the
Secretary’’.
(C) Section 31141 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended—
(i) by striking subsection (b) and in-
serting the following:
‘‘(b) ANNUAL ANALYSIS BY THE SECRETARY.—The
Secretary annually shall analyze State laws and regula-
HR 2002 PP
tions and decide which of the laws and regulations are re-
lated to commercial motor vehicle safety.’’; and
(ii) in subsection (c)—
(I) in paragraph (1), by striking
‘‘The Secretary’’ and all that follows
through ‘‘shall—’’ and inserting ‘‘Not
later than 18 months after the date on
which the Secretary makes a decision
under subsection (b) that a State law
or regulation is related to commercial
motor vehicle safety or 18 months after
the date on which the Secretary pre-
scribes a regulation under section
31136, whichever is later, the Secretary
shall—’’; and
(II) in paragraph (5), by striking
‘‘(5)(A) In’’ and all that follows
through ‘‘(B) In’’ and inserting ‘‘(5)
In’’.
Ω189æSEC. 365. DELAY OF RESTRICTION ON AVAIL-
ABILITY OF CERTAIN HIGHWAY FUNDS; NATIONAL
HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.
(a) DELAY OF RESTRICTION ON AVAILABILITY OF CER-
TAIN HIGHWAY FUNDS.—Section 103(b) of title 23, United
HR 2002 PP
States Code, is amended in paragraph (3)(B), by striking
‘‘1995’’ and inserting ‘‘1997’’.
(b) NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.—Sec-
tion 103 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by in-
serting after subsection (b) the following:
‘‘(c) NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION.—
‘‘(1) DESIGNATION.—The most recent National
Highway System (as of the date of enactment of this
subsection) as submitted by the Secretary of Trans-
portation pursuant to this section is designated as the
National Highway System.
‘‘(2) MODIFICATIONS.—
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—At the request of a
State, the Secretary may—
‘‘(i) add a new route segment to the
National Highway System, including a new
intermodal connection; or
‘‘(ii) delete a route segment in existence
on the date of the request and any connec-
tion to the route segment;
if the total mileage of the National Highway
System (including any route segment or connec-
tion proposed to be added under this subpara-
graph) does not exceed 165,000 miles (265,542
kilometers).
HR 2002 PP
‘‘(B) PROCEDURES
FOR
CHANGES
RE-
QUESTED BY STATES.—Each State that makes a
request for a change in the National Highway
System pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall es-
tablish that each change in a route segment or
connection referred to in the subparagraph has
been identified by the State, in cooperation with
local officials, pursuant to applicable transpor-
tation planning activities for metropolitan areas
carried out under section 134 and statewide
planning processes carried out under section 135.
‘‘(3) APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY.—The Sec-
retary may approve a request made by a State for a
change in the National Highway System pursuant to
paragraph (2) if the Secretary determines that the
change—
‘‘(A) meets the criteria established for the
National Highway System under this title; and
‘‘(B) enhances the national transportation
characteristics of the National Highway Sys-
tem.’’.
HR 2002 PP
Ω190æTITLE
IV—PROVIDING
FOR
THE
ADOPTION
OF
MANDATORY
STAND-
ARDS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING
THE
ACTIONS
OF
ARBITRATORS
IN
THE
ARBITRATION
OF
LABOR
DIS-
PUTES INVOLVING TRANSIT AGENCIES
OPERATING IN THE NATIONAL CAP-
ITAL AREA
SECTION 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Capital Area
Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995’’.
SEC. 402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) affordable public transportation is essential
to the economic vitality of the national capital area
and is an essential component of regional efforts to
improve air quality to meet environmental require-
ments and to improve the health of both residents
of and visitors to the national capital area as well
as to preserve the beauty and dignity of the Nation’s
capital;
(2) use of mass transit by both residents of and
visitors to the national capital area is substantially
affected by the prices charged for such mass transit
services, prices that are substantially affected by
HR 2002 PP
labor costs, since more than 2⁄3 of operating costs
are attributable to labor costs;
(3) labor costs incurred in providing mass tran-
sit in the national capital area have increased at an
alarming rate and wages and benefits of operators
and mechanics currently are among the highest in
the Nation;
(4) higher operating costs incurred for public
transit in the national capital area cannot be offset
by increasing costs to patrons, since this often dis-
courages ridership and thus undermines the public
interest in promoting the use of public transit;
(5) spiraling labor costs cannot be offset by the
governmental entities that are responsible for sub-
sidy payments for public transit services since local
governments generally, and the District of Columbia
government in particular, are operating under severe
fiscal constraints;
(6) imposition of mandatory standards applica-
ble to arbitrators resolving arbitration disputes in-
volving interstate compact agencies operating in the
national capital area will ensure that wage increases
are justified and do not exceed the ability of transit
patrons and taxpayers to fund the increase; and
HR 2002 PP
(7) Federal legislation is necessary under Arti-
cle I of section 8 of the United States Constitution
to balance the need to moderate and lower labor
costs while maintaining industrial peace.
(b) PURPOSE.—It is therefore the purpose of this Act
to adopt standards governing arbitration which must be
applied by arbitrators resolving disputes involving inter-
state compact agencies operating in the national capital
area in order to lower operating costs for public transpor-
tation in the Washington metropolitan area.
SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Title—
(1) the term ‘‘arbitration’’ means—
(A) the arbitration of disputes, regarding
the terms and conditions of employment, that is
required under an interstate compact governing
an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area; and
(B) does not include the interpretation and
application of rights arising from an existing
collective bargaining agreement;
(2) the term ‘‘arbitrator’’ refers to either a sin-
gle arbitrator, or a board of arbitrators, chosen
under applicable procedures;
HR 2002 PP
(3) an interstate compact agency’s ‘‘funding
ability’’ is the ability of the interstate compact agen-
cy, or of any governmental jurisdiction which pro-
vides subsidy payments or budgetary assistance to
the interstate compact agency, to obtain the nec-
essary financial resources to pay for wage and bene-
fit increases for employees of the interstate compact
agency;
(4) the term ‘‘interstate compact agency operat-
ing in the national capital area’’ means any inter-
state compact agency which provides public transit
services;
(5)
the
term
‘‘interstate
compact
agency’’
means any agency established by an interstate com-
pact to which the District of Columbia is a signa-
tory; and
(6) the term ‘‘public welfare’’ includes, with re-
spect to arbitration under an interstate compact—
(A) the financial ability of the individual
jurisdictions participating in the compact to pay
for the costs of providing public transit services;
and
(B) the average per capita tax burden,
during the term of the collective bargaining
agreement to which the arbitration relates, of
HR 2002 PP
the residents of the Washington, D.C. metro-
politan area, and the effect of an arbitration
award rendered pursuant to such arbitration on
the respective income or property tax rates of
the jurisdictions which provide subsidy pay-
ments to the interstate compact agency estab-
lished under the compact.
SEC. 404. STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATORS.
(a) FACTORS IN MAKING ARBITRATION AWARD.—An
arbitrator rendering an arbitration award involving the
employees of an interstate compact agency operating in
the national capital area may not make a finding or a deci-
sion for inclusion in a collective bargaining agreement gov-
erning conditions of employment without considering the
following factors:
(1) The existing terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(2) All available financial resources of the inter-
state compact agency.
(3)
The
annual
increase
or
decrease
in
consumer prices for goods and services as reflected
in the most recent consumer price index for the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States
Department of Labor.
HR 2002 PP
(4) The wages, benefits, and terms and condi-
tions of the employment of other employees who per-
form, in other jurisdictions in the Washington, D.C.
standard metropolitan statistical area, services simi-
lar to those in the bargaining unit.
(5) The special nature of the work performed
by the employees in the bargaining unit, including
any hazards or the relative ease of employment,
physical requirements, educational qualifications, job
training and skills, shift assignments, and the de-
mands placed upon the employees as compared to
other employees of the interstate compact agency.
(6) The interests and welfare of the employees
in the bargaining unit, including—
(A) the overall compensation presently re-
ceived by the employees, having regard not only
for wage rates but also for wages for time not
worked, including vacations, holidays, and other
excused absences;
(B) all benefits received by the employees,
including previous bonuses, insurance, and pen-
sions; and
(C) the continuity and stability of employ-
ment.
(7) The public welfare.
HR 2002 PP
(b) COMPACT AGENCY’S FUNDING ABILITY.—An ar-
bitrator rendering an arbitration award involving the em-
ployees of an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area may not, with respect to a collective
bargaining agreement governing conditions of employ-
ment, provide for salaries and other benefits that exceed
the interstate compact agency’s funding ability.
(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL AWARD.—In resolv-
ing a dispute submitted to arbitration involving the em-
ployees of an interstate compact agency operating in the
national capital area, the arbitrator shall issue a written
award that demonstrates that all the factors set forth in
subsections (a) and (b) have been considered and applied.
An award may grant an increase in pay rates or benefits
(including insurance and pension benefits), or reduce
hours of work, only if the arbitrator concludes that any
costs to the agency do not adversely affect the public wel-
fare. The arbitrator’s conclusion regarding the public wel-
fare must be supported by substantial evidence.
SEC. 405. PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS.
(a) MODIFICATIONS AND FINALITY OF AWARD.—In
the case of an arbitration award to which section 404 ap-
plies, the interstate compact agency and the employees in
the bargaining unit, through their representative, may
agree in writing upon any modifications to the award with-
HR 2002 PP
in 10 days after the award is received by the parties. After
the end of that 10-day period, the award, with any such
modifications, shall become binding upon the interstate
compact agency, the employees in the bargaining unit, and
the employees’ representative.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Each party to an award that
becomes binding under subsection (a) shall take all actions
necessary to implement the award.
(c) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Within 60 days after an
award becomes binding under subsection (a), the inter-
state compact agency or the exclusive representative of the
employees concerned may file a civil action in a court
which has jurisdiction over the interstate compact agency
for review of the award. The court shall review the award
on the record, and shall vacate the award or any part of
the award, after notice and a hearing, if—
(1) the award is in violation of applicable law;
(2) the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s pow-
ers;
(3) the decision by the arbitrator is arbitrary or
capricious;
(4) the arbitrator conducted the hearing con-
trary to the provisions of this title or other statutes
or rules that apply to the arbitration so as to sub-
stantially prejudice the rights of a party;
HR 2002 PP
(5) there was partiality or misconduct by the
arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party;
(6) the award was procured by corruption,
fraud, or bias on the part of the arbitrator; or
(7) the arbitrator did not comply with the pro-
visions of section 404.
Ω191æTITLE V
ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. None of the funds made available in this
Act may be used for improvements to the Miller Highway
in New York City, New York.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Trans-
portation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996’’.
Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1995.
Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,
Clerk.
Passed the Senate August 10 (legislative day, July
10), 1995.
Attest:
SHEILA P. BURKE,
Secretary.
HR 2002 PP——2
HR 2002 PP——3
HR 2002 PP——4
HR 2002 PP——5
HR 2002 PP——6