portation (DOT) for improving civil use of GPS, the DOD has agreed to notify the Federal Aviation Administration within 48 hours with regard to certain changes to signal components within the overall specification. A joint DOD/DOT technical group is examining the way these signals are generated, and will be considering both civil benefits and national security risks in its deliberations on further improvements to the signal availability and reliability.

Mr. WOLF. Also, if we do achieve civilian application of this system, what safeguards can be built into the system to prevent its use by terrorists or other criminals?

[The information follows:]

The principal national security concern regarding GPS is its use on the battlefield by forces opposed to U.S. troops and our allies. Current use of encrypted signals for use by the U.S. military and allied forces, together with other countermeasures are believed adequate for maintaining our military advantage.

We recognize that worldwide availability of GPS could allow its misuse by terrorists and criminals, and these elements may attempt to use or disrupt it for unintended purposes. We are developing options for dealing with such misuse which will ensure that the tremendous civil benefits from GPS are not lost. Indeed, some of these benefits relate to use of civil GPS by law enforcement authorities.

AIR SAFETY REGULATIONS OF U.S. CARRIERS VS. FOREIGN CARRIERS Mr. WOLF. According to the Air Transport Association in testimony before this Committee, there are several discrepancies in safety regulations imposed on domestic and foreign carriers, even while operating in the U.S. one of these is the so called "killer cup" rule which precludes flight attendants from collecting service products while the plane is taxiing. This applies to domestic carriers, but not to foreign carriers operating here. Another discrepancy, according to the ATA, is in de-icing regulations. At the gate, all carriers must go through the same procedure at U.S. airports. But if the carriers pull away from the gate and there is a delay, U.S.-flag carriers may have to repeat the de-icing procedures where the foreign flag carriers do not, even though there will doubtless be many U.S. citizens on that foreign carrier.

Other discrepancies occur in such regs as drug and alcohol testing and width of passageways to overwing exits. Last year, I questioned the FAA about these discrepancies, particularly when the carriers are operating on U.S. soil, and, frankly, the answer was a bit lame. The answer was basically that requiring the foreign carriers to conform to the same regs would amount to rejecting the concept of international conventions and would be difficult to enforce.

Given that the purpose of these regulations is the safety of the flying public, wouldn't it make sense to require uniformity for all carriers while operating at U.S. airports?

These discrepancies obviously put domestic carriers at a competitive disadvantage. In light of the administration's attempts to help the airline industry, wouldn't this be a good place to start?

[The information follows:]

Before promulgating any regulation, the FAA considers the safety data, to include accident and incident reports, cost information, international considerations, and through forums such as public meetings and the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, information from all interested parties. A proposal is then published for commend that specifically requests information from the affected public. These often result in comments from foreign air carriers and foreign governments as well as affected U.S. parties.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on February 15, 1994, the FAA stated that it would impose drug and alcohol testing requirements on foreign air carriers operating within the territory of the U.S. by January 1, 1996, unless bilateral or multilateral action through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was undertaken to address the threat of substance abuse in international civil aviation. Given the sensitivity and complexity of this issue, the FAA stated its preference for multilateral ICÃO action rather than unilateral U.S. action.

In reference to the overwing exit comment, we are not able to confirm the extent to which foreign regulatory agencies have or have not adopted U.S. requirements. We are, however, aware that several foreign operators are, or are in the process of, voluntarily complying with the U.S. requirement. Since the interior reconfigurations required do not involve any loss of passenger seating, we feel it would be difficult to make a case that these reconfigurations place U.S. carriers at a competitive disadvantage to those foreign operators who do not conform. To the contrary, it would seem that U.S. carriers in compliance with the rule would enjoy a clear marketing advantage due to the obvious improved evacuation access when there is no penalty in seat loss.

Likewise, it is our experience to date that the foreign air carriers do not have any significant competitive advantage as a result of the de-icing regulations. The FAA solicits specific information from anyone who can cite an instance of competitive disadvantage as a result of the application of this or any other rule. The competitive effect of its rules is an important consideration, and the agency would be willing to consider amendments that do not adversely affect the overall level of safety achieved by this rule. In addition, it is important to note that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is addressing this issue through an IATA global_de/ anti-icing forum whose purpose is to develop an ICAO ground deicing standard. The FAA fully supports this effort.

In response to the comment on the "killer cup" rule, the FAA policy currently is allowing service items (cups, glasses, snack trays) to be picked up during surface movement (taxing before takeoff). Flight attendants are not, however, allowed to serve food or beverages while the aircraft is taxing. The FAA continues to study this matter, and believes the present situation is reasonable.

Finally, it is neither possible nor desirable to arbitrarily impose all of our operational requirements on foreign air carriers. Attempting to do so could result in U.S. operators having to conform to a plethora of foreign operational requirements when flying into foreign markets. As a more desirable approach, and one that ultimately benefits U.S. operators, the FAA, works constantly in ICAO for improved worldwide safety standards. A major effort to achieve harmony now is underway with the Joint Aviation Authorities of Europe. While this effort may not eliminate all variations between the sovereign nations' regulatory standards, it does represent a concerted, cooperative effort. The United States' leadership in international air transportation safety is recognized throughout the world. We must, however, continue to follow our statutory mandate to regulate U.S. air carriers recognizing their duty to exercise the highest degree of care in the public interest. At the same time, the United States must continue to honor its international treaty commitment to recognize the sovereignty and responsibility of other nations for the safety of their operators and airspace.

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CARR. Thank you. In Detroit we don't refer to automobiles as metal boxes. We refer to them as personal transportation and fantasy machines.

As you know, it is my normal practice to call on people in the order that they arrived for the hearing, and that is a practice I will continue this year. But I would ask right now if there is any objection to allowing Mr. Durbin to go out of order since he is in the process of chairing a hearing in another room. Mr. Durbin?

SMOKING ON PUBLIC CARRIERS

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, I will try to be very brief. I have three areas, I would like to discuss. I will ask my questions as quickly as I can. First, this morning at about 9:15 I was at a press conference

ald's hamburger restaurant chain was going smoke-free, along with many other chain restaurants across the United States. I personally applaud this action and think it is a step in the right direction for our kids and everybody else.

We have taken some steps on this Subcommittee over the years in that direction, particularly in eliminating smoking on airplanes for domestic flights. But I fear that there are still some items on that agenda that have not been addressed. International flights, number one.

Number two, Amtrak. We continue to receive complaints about the policies on Amtrak.

The President has made it clear in his smoking policy in the White House where this administration is on this issue. Shouldn't we make it clear from a transportation viewpoint in terms of smoking on public carriers as well as advertising of tobacco products on public carriers? Don't you think it is about time that we made it very clear, that that is something that is unacceptable and inconsistent with our nation's efforts to come to grips with its health problems?

Secretary PEÑA. Congressman, you and I have talked about the policies that I initiated years ago back in Denver to deal with this issue, and received a little bit of flak from some about it.

Mr. DURBIN. Received a lot of flak, and I admire you for what you did.

Secretary PEÑA. But we are committed to it. Let me, first of all, thank you for reminding me about the Amtrak situation. I will raise that with Tom Downs and the Amtrak board as soon as we

can.

Second, the question of the international flight, that is something that we are pursuing in an international forum to see if we can get uniformity among the various countries and carriers to do this. We are making some progress. It is not as much as I would like, so we are going to continue to hammer away at that, and whatever other opportunities there are in the transportation arena that we will be happy to look at those.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to work with you on that, and maybe, with Administrator Browner joining us this morning on this issue, we can find some common ground to state a policy that there won't be any secondhand smoke on any carriers that receive Federal assistance and that we will no longer have advertising of tobacco products on mass transit or any other area that receives Federal appropriations. I would like to work with you on that.

AIR CARRIER SLOTS AT O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr. DURBIN. The second issue is one which is closer to my home and relates to O'Hare Airport. We had language in the last appropriations bill about the slot rule. I have a series of questions here and I think I know the answers to most of them. But I really would like you to tell me, what you think of our concern that we are giving away slots for domestic carriers in the United States to foreign carriers to come into O'Hare. For example, where we don't have reciprocity, where in fact we cannot land at London Heathrow, we give British Airways a slot that is presently being used by American or United?

Or where we might have a Romanian airline wants to land at O'Hare and offers to the American carrier the opportunity to land at Bucharest. There seems to be a problem there in terms of equity.

Let me add another final element. Many of these slots are being used by small cities in the Midwest for commuter service. They are losing opportunities to link up with O'Hare and other flights because we are giving slots away to international carriers. Where are we headed in this area?

Secretary PEÑA. Congressman, I am troubled by the past policies which allowed us to convey these slots to foreign carriers without a very specific set of criteria in making those judgments. It wasn't clear to me in past decisions what analysis we were doing to reach that conclusion. For example, the one you have touched on, what is the reciprocity involved? Is the other country amenable to equal access or some reciprocity?

That is one of the reasons that we are doing a slot study of all of the four major airports to rethink these policies. But it has been said that in the past they were made in such small amounts, for example, at O'Hare, that it wasn't a very significant problem.

I would agree with you that the requests are increasing now, we are now getting into larger numbers, and for legitimate reasons, the airlines are raising questions about these slot decisions. I am very sensitive to them, and we will monitor them very carefully. When we complete that study, we will have much better guidance on how to deal with this in the future.

Mr. DURBIN. We put a moratorium on slots to international carriers in our last appropriations bill. Unless we can come up with a sound policy between this discussion and the formulation of our appropriations bill, I will have to ask for it again. I don't think it is the best way to deal with it. I think as you have described, we ought to take a closer look at reasonable solutions rather than just saying there will be no transfer slots. If we can do that on a fairly quick basis, it will be helpful.

HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Mr. DURBIN. The final area of questioning is high-speed rail. I stood next to you at the press conference a little over a year ago and was looking forward this year to presenting a proposal for the Midwest that is near and dear to my heart, the St. Louis Chicago high-speed rail route. But it appears that we have taken a step backward in this year's appropriation. There is money for technology, but no money to move forward.

Is this a reflection of budget deficit reduction?

Is it a reflection of a change of heart by the administration, or is it a reflection of an unclear signal from Congress as to whether we are going to support this program?

Secretary PEÑA. I would say it is the first option, the budget authority problem, not a change of heart. What we are doing with the $32.5 million is, number one, completing the commercial feasibility study that was required by ISTEA that we never did. This will give us a national study that indicates what corridors are feasible, how will the program operate. Two, investment in technology will help

tion. If we can get nonelectric locomotives, that reduces the costs significantly.

So all of that has to be done. But I think once we do that, we will be able to come back with a total comprehensive policy, and that is where I would like to get. I spoke to the President about this during the budget sessions. He is interested in the area. The sense was that given the other priorities in the budget, we weren't able to fund it as much as we would have liked to this year, but we still want to move forward in that area, and that means that we will probably have to make adjustments to the legislation which is going through the House and the Senate to reflect the changes that we have come up with.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CARR. Thank you, Mr. Durbin. Next, Mr. Foglietta.

TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE

Mr. FOGLIETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, last year's budget broke the trend of 14 years by demonstrating a genuine commitment to public transit. You and President Clinton requested significant increases for transit. Chairman Carr and this subcommittee delivered the funding to transit systems across the country. This year again I am pleased with your request for a significant increase in transit capital.

However, like many of my colleagues and the Chairman, I am quite disturbed by the significant 25 percent cut in operating funding.

Now, transit systems certainly need help in building-in rebuilding their infrastructure to increase ridership and fare box revenues. But the corresponding cuts in operating assistance could very well negate any improvements brought about by the increased capital funding. In a survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association, 120 transit agencies reported that they would have to raise fares, cut services, or lay off workers to absorb the reduction in operating funds.

In my city of Philadelphia, I am told that SEPTA, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, would have to raise its base fare by at least 15 cents, and it is already the highest in the country. Now, what good do new trains and buses do if the system can't afford to run them and people can't afford to ride them? You accept the fact that raising fares will move customers away from transit. How and where are you suggesting transit systems get the money that they will need to run these new trains and new buses?

Secretary PEÑA. Congressman, let me say at the outset before I answer your question specifically that there is legitimate disagreement here. I have spent a lot of time on this issue. I wish I could say that we speak with perfect knowledge, but I don't think we do.

What we have tried to do is to be as strategic as we can from the federal level in making our investments in transit. We chose to make what we perceive is a more strategic investment in the capital side for the following reasons. We know that new buses will reduce operating costs by having more fuel-efficient buses.

We know that we will reduce maintenance costs by having buses that are not over-age, as we do today. We know that investments