[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8893-S8909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have notified all Members that we would 
like to complete action on the transportation appropriations bill. I 
believe our managers are ready to move in that direction.
  We have a list of amendments now that have been identified.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
first-degree amendments in order to the pending transportation bill, 
and subject to relevant second-degree amendments:
  Managers' amendments; Senator Lott, three relevant amendments; 
Senator Shelby, three relevant amendments; Senator Frist, regarding 
cemeteries; Senator Abraham, regarding name change, ITS; Senator 
Specter, regarding bond issue; Senator DeWine, regarding Coast Guard; 
Senator McConnell, regarding expedited review; Senator McCain, 
regarding Amtrak bookkeeping; Senator Leahy, regarding helicopters; 
Senator Byrd, two relevant amendments; Senator Levin, regarding 
commuter rail; Senator Bumpers, relevant; Senator Lautenberg, relevant 
in three instances; Senator Daschle, three relevant amendments; Senator 
Kerry, one amendment on Amtrak; Senator Feingold, relevant amendment; 
Senator Johnson, two relevant amendments; and Senator Durbin, regarding 
smoking on international flights.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And Gramm on drugs.
  Mr. LOTT. And one last, Senator Gramm possibly, one amendment 
regarding Coast Guard.
  Mr. President, we deleted the Feingold relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while we have leadership on the floor, 
we have heard the list. That is now confined. I think we ought to get 
on with the business of getting it done. We could wrap this bill up in 
short order. There is a full agenda. The majority leader holds out a 
plum at the end of the ladder. The plum swings a week from Friday. This 
helps reach that goal.
  I ask my colleagues if they want to get out of here on Friday--I know 
most of them would like to stay, but you will have to put up with us in 
getting out early.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the managers of this legislation. Senators Shelby 
and Lautenberg are on the verge of setting a very commendable record. I 
ask that they quickly go through this list of amendments and dispose of 
them and, as soon as possible, identify any needed votes, get a time 
agreement on those votes, and get it done as quickly as possible. It 
would help us be prepared to move on to other appropriations bills and 
be able to get out of here as scheduled next Friday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I know the hour is beginning to get late and Members would 
like to know what they can expect tonight. We do have a list of 
amendments that the managers are working on right now. I believe most 
of those are going to be resolved without the necessity of extended 
debate, or even a vote. We should know in another 15 minutes or so 
exactly what that would be. I hope there won't be more than one or two 
amendments that require some time.
  Our intent would be to do those amendments that are necessary and 
final passage, and then Senator Daschle and I would like to go to the 
District of Columbia appropriations bill. Senator Coats and Senator 
Lieberman have an amendment that they are prepared to debate tonight, 
discuss tonight, and we hope to have all debate on that and other 
amendments, but the vote on the amendments and final passage we would 
propose would be done then Monday night at 5 o'clock in order to 
accommodate one of the managers.
  Tomorrow, while we will have a vote or two early in the morning, we 
will go to the credit union bill early in the morning. There are not 
expected to be

[[Page S8894]]

any recorded votes on the credit union bill in the morning.
  So in summation, if we could get cooperation on the transportation 
bill, we could wrap that up here relatively shortly and that would be 
the final vote tonight, if the Members would cooperate with us.
  Senator Daschle has been working to get this amendment list 
identified. He agrees that this would be a good approach. The Members 
would have a decent night tonight, and we would be able to wrap up 
early in the morning and then go to the credit union bill.
  I ask Senator Daschle if that is his thinking on this process at this 
time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senators on both sides for 
the cooperation that they have given on transportation, as well as on 
the District of Columbia. I think we can accommodate Senators' 
schedules and the need to pass these two bills in an appropriate time 
by taking the actions the majority leader has outlined.
  So I think this is a plan that will still require some cooperation 
and support on both sides of the aisle, but I think we can do it. I 
think it is the best way with which to accommodate schedules as well as 
the need to address these issues soon. So I certainly commend the 
majority leader for the recommendations and the proposal, and I hope we 
can complete our work.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor. I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are working together, Senator 
Lautenberg and I, and our staffs. We are close to resolving a number of 
amendments here, but there are some amendments that will require votes. 
I just ask the sponsors to come on down to the floor because we are 
probably going to have to have some votes on them: The McConnell 
amendment regarding expedited review, the McCain amendment regarding 
Amtrak bookkeeping, the Leahy amendment regarding helicopters, the 
Kerry amendment regarding Amtrak, and the Durbin amendment, smoking on 
international flights.
  It is just a few minutes before 7. Senator Lautenberg and I are ready 
to move. If Members who are sponsoring those amendments would come on 
down and help us, I think it would expedite the bill tonight.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand that the majority leader, 
the leadership has agreed we are going to finish this bill tonight?
  Mr. SHELBY. That is right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It becomes a matter of Members' choice; you either 
finish it late or you finish it early. I am not dismissing the 
importance of anybody's amendment, but now is the time to do it. If it 
is not important enough to get over here and do it, I think we will try 
to expedite things, if the majority leader and minority leader agree, 
to get to a third reading. We have a couple of things we can do. We 
should do them. We are now looking at the possibility of clearing some.
  So until then, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3326

 (Purpose: To provide for expedited review to ensure constitutionality 
   of section 1101(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
                                Century)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3326.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 92, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 3____. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.

       (a) Expedited Consideration.--It shall be the duty of a 
     district court of the United States and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the maximum extent practicable the disposition of any claim 
     challenging the constitutionality of section 1101(b) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 101 
     note; 112 Stat. 113), whether on its face or as applied.
       (b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any order of a district court of the United States 
     disposing of a claim described in subsection (a) shall be 
     reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.
       (2) Deadlines for appeal.--
       (A) Notice of appeal.--Any appeal under paragraph (1) shall 
     be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 calendar days 
     after the date on which the order of the district court is 
     entered.
       (B) Jurisdictional statement.--The jurisdictional statement 
     shall be filed within 30 calendar days after the date on 
     which the order of the district court is entered.
       (3) Stays.--No stay of an order described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be issued by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.
       (c) Applicability.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply 
     with respect to any claim filed after June 9, 1998, but 
     before June 10, 1999.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk 
simply says that the courts should tell us once and for all whether the 
DBE Program in the new ISTEA law is constitutional.
  The new ISTEA law, now referred to as the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century, or TEA 21 for short, contains the much debated 
and long discussed DBE Program.
  As every Senator knows, and as the Supreme Court has made clear, this 
Government-mandated program requires States and private contractors to 
treat persons differently based on race. The DBE Program, at a minimum, 
grants benefits and presumptions to some persons based on race and 
ethnicity but denies the same benefits and presumptions to others based 
on race and ethnicity.
  Now, some say that the preferences are vast and pervasive, while 
others say preferences are only slight and incremental. Some say that 
preferences are unfair. Others say that any burdens placed on persons 
of the wrong race are far outweighed by the benefits for the citizens 
of the ``officially preferred'' race.
  Mr. President, my views on this issue are well known and well 
documented in the Congressional Record. But the policy debate over TEA 
21 and the DBE Program is over for now. We have moved beyond that 
policy debate for the moment. The only thing that the Senate can do 
today is to ensure the constitutionality of the DBE Program mandated in 
TEA 21. That is precisely what my amendment does.
  Mr. President, when the topic is racial preferences, it is rare that 
both parties can find any agreement. But I think today is that rare 
moment. I think there are several areas of agreement today that should 
lead to unanimous approval of my amendment.
  First, I think we all agree that the Supreme Court has acknowledged 
that racial preference programs subject persons to unequal treatment 
under the law.
  In landmark Supreme Court cases, like Adarand v. Pena, and City of 
Richmond v. Croson, the Court made it clear that programs doling out 
different presumptions, benefits, and burdens based on race, in fact, 
subject Americans to unequal treatment under the law.
  In the words of the Supreme Court:

       Whenever the government treats any person unequally because 
     of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that 
     falls squarely within the language and the spirit of the 
     Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

  Moreover, the Court explained:

       We deal here with a classification based upon the race of 
     the participants, which must be viewed in light of the 
     historical fact that the central purpose of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment was to eliminate racial discrimination emanating 
     from official sources in the States. This strong policy 
     renders racial classifications ``constitutionally suspect,'' 
     and subject to the ``most rigid scrutiny,'' and ``in most 
     circumstances irrelevant'' to any constitutionally acceptable 
     legislative purpose.


[[Page S8895]]


  So, Mr. President, out of the mouth of the highest court in the land 
we hear our first undisputed fact: Programs like the DBE Program 
subject Americans to unequal treatment under the law.
  Our second undisputed fact is that the Supreme Court will only 
tolerate such unequal treatment if the program can survive the test of 
strict scrutiny. That is, is the program, first, narrowly tailored; 
second, to remedy past discrimination?
  Let me again quote the Supreme Court in Adarand. The Court said:

       We hold today that all racial classifications, imposed by 
     whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be 
     analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.

  This leads me to the third undisputed fact: Strict scrutiny is an 
extremely high constitutional hurdle. The administration has conceded 
the height and depth of the constitutional challenge following Adarand. 
It has spent a considerable amount of resources over the last 3 years 
trying to respond to Adarand.
  Let me count the ways. First, the administration was forced to launch 
a governmentwide review of all racial preference programs; second, the 
President even promised to ``mend'' those programs that were broken; 
third, the Justice Department and the Commerce Department joined forces 
to embark upon an unprecedented national benchmark survey to help 
figure out whether various racial preference programs could survive the 
strict scrutiny test after the Adarand case; and finally, several media 
reports have indicated that the President has been forced to make good 
on the part of his promise, and that he has attempted to end or curtail 
several programs.
  Mr. President, I think it is clear to all of us that strict scrutiny 
is an extremely high constitutional hurdle. Let me quote our colleague, 
Senator Byrd, on this point. My typically astute and always 
distinguished colleague from West Virginia explained in the 
Congressional Record that the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand 
``makes it exceedingly difficult for any affirmative action program to 
pass constitutional muster.'' And as the Senate's unofficial historian, 
Senator Byrd dutifully noted that ``the last time the Supreme Court 
upheld a statute based on a racial or national origin classification 
under the strict scrutiny test was in 1944.''
  Undisputed fact No. 4: Upon remand, the district court in Adarand 
followed the Supreme Court's lead and found that the DBE Program could 
not meet the test of strict scrutiny. Let me read the relevant portion 
of the district court's opinion and order:

       It is ordered that section 1003(b) of ISTEA, [that is, the 
     Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program] and . . . the 
     regulations promulgated thereunder . . . are 
     unconstitutional.

  In fact, the district court, like many of us in the Senate, expressly 
questioned whether any race-based statute could be upheld as 
constitutional.
  The Federal judge concluded, ``I find it difficult to envision a 
race-based classification that is narrowly tailored.''
  The district court's ruling was not exactly a surprise to many of the 
Nation's constitutional scholars. As the Congressional Research Service 
has explained, the district court's decision in Adarand ``largely 
conforms to a pattern of Federal rulings which have invalidated State 
and local government programs to promote minority contracting in the 
following places: Richmond, San Francisco, San Diego, Dade County, 
Florida, Atlanta, New Orleans, Columbus, [the State of] Louisiana, and 
[the State of] Michigan, among others. . . .''
  So let me repeat undisputed fact No. 4. The DBE Program was declared 
unconstitutional by the Federal court in Colorado.
  Undisputed fact No. 5: The attempt to respond to Adarand did not 
involve any statutory reform whatsoever. The administration's reform of 
the law came in the form of a maze of complex and lengthy new 
regulations to try to fix the ISTEA program.
  Undisputed fact No. 6: Members of both parties expressed concern 
about the constitutionality of the program, and many of those who voted 
to support it relied upon the administration's promises and proposed 
regulations. I am sure that my colleagues will remember that in March 
of this year, 1998, a divided Senate spent several hours over the 
course of 2 days debating whether a ``mended'' transportation program 
that continues to treat persons differently based on race would now be 
upheld as constitutional. Ultimately, 58 Senators took the 
administration at its word and reauthorized the program, but with a 
very watchful eye.
  I think that my good friend from New Mexico summed up the feeling of 
those Senators who supported the new DBE Program, but had the following 
admonition. Senator Domenici said:

       I say to the administration very clearly right now: You 
     have now put the signature of the Attorney General of the 
     United States and the Secretary of [Transportation] on the 
     answer to . . . seven questions [about the constitutionality 
     of this program]. And this Senator [Senator Domenici, 
     referring to himself] and I think a number of other Senators, 
     is going to be voting to keep the provisions in the bill 
     based on these kinds of assurances. . . . If, in fact, it 
     comes out in a few months that the regulations are not being 
     interpreted in a way suggested here, then I assure you that 
     we will change them. . . . This better come as a very, very, 
     serious challenge to the administration as they finally 
     implement this program.

  This candor and concern was also expressed by other Members on both 
sides of the aisle. Let me share an insightful colloquy pointing out 
the constitutional concerns. This colloquy involved the distinguished 
Environment and Public Works committee chairman, Senator Chafee; the 
ranking member, Senator Baucus; the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Senator Warner; and Senators 
Domenici and Durbin.
  Let me read those statements from the Congressional Record of March 5 
of this year.
  Senator Durbin said:

       I believe the DBE program must be implemented in a manner 
     that is constitutional. I believe that it is critical to the 
     integrity of the program, and to the Senate's support of that 
     program. Therefore, I would like to ask the chairman and 
     ranking member--whose committee has oversight of the DBE 
     program--is it their intention to press the Department to 
     ensure that the new regulations pass constitutional muster?

  That was a question being asked by the Senator from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin.
  Senator Chafee, the chairman of the committee responding:

       Yes, it is. We have made it clear to the Secretary that 
     while one can never predict with 100 percent certainty what 
     language may pass constitutional muster, the Committee 
     expects the Secretary and his legal staff to do their utmost 
     to make sure that the new regulations closely follow the 
     guidance set forth by the Court in Adarand.

  Senator Baucus, the ranking minority member of the committee says:

       I concur. It is the committee's intention that this program 
     be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the 
     Constitution. We expect no less. Secretary Slater is aware 
     of, and I am assured agrees with, our views on this 
     matter.
       Senator Warner. As chair of the subcommittee that sponsored 
     this bill, I have a particular interest in this matter and 
     want to assure the Senator that adherence to Adarand is our 
     intent.
       Senator Domenici. I appreciate the Senator's confirmation 
     on this point. Let me ask further: Will the committee 
     continue to be in touch with Department officials as the 
     regulations are ready for release? And will the committee 
     scrutinize the new regulations to ensure that the Department 
     did in fact follow the Court's guidance under Adarand?
       Senator Chafee. Yes, we will.
       Senator Baucus. I can assure the Senator, and the Senate, 
     that we will indeed.
       Senator Warner. We certainly intend to.
       Senator Domenici. I am pleased to hear it, and I want to 
     thank the Senators for taking the time to respond to my 
     concerns.

  Mr. President, I could stand here on the floor and read statement 
after statement made by Members of both parties during the ISTEA debate 
in March of this year that spell out the Senate's serious 
constitutional concerns about the DBE Program. But I think it is 
abundantly clear that every Member of the Senate understands the 
constitutional guarantees and obstacles that stand in the way of a 
Federal highway program that treats Americans differently based on the 
immutable trait of race.
  Let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with and appreciate the 
constitutional concerns set forth by Senators Chafee, Baucus, Warner, 
Durbin, and Domenici. We must ensure that the new DBE Program is 
constitutional.

[[Page S8896]]

  My amendment is perfectly consistent with these constitutional 
concerns, and I hope all Senators will fully support my amendment.
  Undisputed fact No. 7: The proposed regulations were not final prior 
to our vote back in March on the DBE Program. In fact, the proposed 
regulations are still not final, even though the Congressional Record 
is filled with statements promising that the new DBE regs would be 
final in April or May of this year.
  Well, Mr. President, we are now headed into August, and it is my 
understanding that the States and contractors still have no guidance 
from DOT on how to run this multibillion-dollar DBE Program in 
compliance with the Constitution, with Adarand, with the Supreme Court 
and the law of the land.
  So as the statements that I read earlier from Senators Chafee, 
Baucus, and others made clear, we do not know for sure whether the 
regulations make the DBE Program more constitutional or less 
constitutional. We do not know for sure whether the proposed 
regulations will help or hurt, whether the regs alter the statute to 
allow the program to pass the stringent test of strict scrutiny, or 
whether the Federal courts will follow the district court in Adarand 
and continue to strike down the program as unconstitutional.
  Mr. President, undisputed fact No. 8: The Senate should take its oath 
to uphold the Constitution seriously. Mr. President, let me say that 
all of us, when we come into the Senate, solemnly swear that we will 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I think we 
can all agree that this is a constitutional oath that should be taken 
seriously. In fact, for a good portion of our history, the Congress 
mandated an expedited Supreme Court review of any and all 
constitutional questions.
  In more recent years, the Congress has focused the expedited review 
approach on those important laws that are surrounded by legitimate 
questions of constitutional validity. A quick search by the 
Congressional Research Service has documented several recent laws and 
bills that have included expedited Supreme Court review provisions. I 
think my colleagues will remember each of these. Let me name just a 
few: the Line-Item Veto Act; the Communications Decency Act; the census 
sampling in last year's Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill; the 
District of Columbia Schools Opportunity Scholarships Act; and the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. All of those rather well-known measures had 
an expedited review provision. These are only a few of the bills that 
have included expedited review provisions. These were generally 
supported and passed in both Houses of Congress for the simple reason 
that there were legitimate questions of constitutionality surrounding 
key provisions of the bills.
  Mr. President, this leads me to undisputed fact No. 9: I think we can 
all agree that, at a minimum, there are legitimate questions of 
constitutional validity regarding the DBE Program. Both the Senate and 
the House acknowledged these questions when we had extended debate and 
a divided vote back in March on whether the program was constitutional.
  Moreover, the TEA 21 law is direct evidence that both the Senate and 
the House feel that there are legitimate constitutional questions 
surrounding the DBE Program. Specifically, TEA 21 contains a provision 
that prohibits the Department of Transportation from cutting off 
Federal transportation funds whenever a State discontinues its 
federally mandated DBE Program in compliance with a court order 
striking down the program as unconstitutional. So, Mr. President, the 
very law we passed makes it perfectly clear that there are valid 
questions of constitutionality about the DBE Program.
  The courts have also made it clear that the DBE Program raises 
genuine questions of constitutionality. Case law is replete with courts 
striking down programs that mandate different rules and different 
treatment for citizens of different races. The Congressional Research 
Service, as I noted earlier, has found that the recent Adarand decision 
by the district court conforms to a pattern of Federal rulings striking 
down racial preference programs across the country. I have here a long 
list of cases in the last few years where courts have declared programs 
like the DBE Program to be unconstitutional. This list shows court 
decisions by the Supreme Court, D.C. circuit, the third circuit, the 
fourth circuit, the fifth circuit, the sixth circuit, the seventh 
circuit, the ninth circuit, the eleventh circuit--all striking down 
race-based programs. The list also shows other unambiguous rulings of 
lower courts in Georgia, Connecticut, Ohio, Louisiana, Michigan, 
Colorado, and the city of Houston--again, all striking down race-based 
programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Race-Based Contracting Programs Are Routinely Struck Down

       The Congressional Research Service has explained that the 
     recent district court decision in Adarand conforms to a 
     pattern of federal rulings across the country striking down 
     race-based contracting programs as unconstitutional.
       See City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989); 
     Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1998); Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702 (9th 
     Cir. 1997); Engineering Contractors Ass'n of South Florida, 
     Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade Co. 1997 WL 535626 (11th Cir. 
     1997); U.S. v. Board of Education of the Township of 
     Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996); Hopwood v. State of 
     Texas., 95 F.3d 53 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct 
     2581 (1996); Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 
     1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 2001 (1995); O'Donnell 
     Construction Co. v. District of Columbia, 963 F.2d 420 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1992); Milwaukee County Pavers Ass'n. v. Feidler, 922 
     F.2d 419 (7th Cir. 1991); Associated General Contractors of 
     California, Inc. v. San Francisco, 813 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 
     1987); Michigan Road Builders Assoc., Inc., v. Milliken, 834 
     F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1987).
       Houston Contractors Association v. Metropolitan Transit 
     Authority of Harris County, 993 F.Supp. 545 (S.D. Tex. 1997); 
     Adarand v. Pena, 965 F. Supp. 1556 (D. Colo. 1997); 
     Associated General Contractors of America v. Columbus, 936 F. 
     Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ohio 1996); Louisiana Associated General 
     Contractors, Inc. v. Louisiana, 669 So.2d 1185 (La. 1996); 
     Contractors Ass'n. of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Philadelphia, 
     893 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Pa. 1995), affirmed 91 F. 3d 586, (3d 
     Cir. 1996) cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 953 (1997); Arrow Office 
     Supply v. Detroit, 826 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Mich. 1993); Arrow 
     Office Supply v. Detroit, 826 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Mich. 
     1993); Associated General Contractors of Connecticut v. New 
     Haven, 791 F. Supp. 941 (D. Conn. 1992); S.J. Groves & Sons 
     Co. v. Fulton County, 696 F. Supp. 1480 (N.D. Ga. 1987).

  Mr. McCONNELL. Finally, Mr. President, undisputed fact No. 10: If we 
are willing to grant expedited review to ensure the constitutionality 
of everything from census sampling to vouchers to vetoes to balanced 
budget laws to Internet restrictions, then surely we would all agree 
that Americans deserve to know whether an important law involving race, 
civil rights, the 5th and 14th amendments, is constitutional.
  We all know that there are many more cases striking down racial 
preference programs than there are cases striking down vouchers, or 
line-item vetoes, or balanced budget laws, or Internet restrictions. In 
fact, I will bet that you could combine and add up all of the cases 
striking down vouchers, line-item vetoes, balanced budget laws, and 
Internet restrictions, and that amount still would be less than the 
number of court cases striking down racial preference programs. Surely, 
if we have given expedited review to all of those other issues, then we 
are going to give expedited review to the critical issue of civil 
rights and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the 
laws.
  Mr. President, I have spelled out 10 undisputed facts which serve as 
the common ground for the amendment I have offered. I think these facts 
are more than reason enough to immediately pass this expedited review 
amendment.
  Let me simply close by pointing out that the time for debating the 
constitutionality of the DBE Program has passed. Now the courts must 
decide. My proposed amendment simply just says that the Supreme Court 
should tell us once and for all whether a transportation program that 
treats contractors and subcontractors differently based on race can 
survive strict scrutiny.
  We must ensure the constitutionality of the DBE Program. We owe it to 
the States and localities that are receiving the billions of dollars in 
TEA 21 funds.
  We owe it to the contractors who are threatened with the loss of jobs 
and contracts if they do not comply with the constitutionally suspect 
mandate of TEA 21.

[[Page S8897]]

  We owe it to the minority-owned businesses who are forced to hang in 
the balance and twist in the constitutional winds wondering if the 
current program will survive a court challenge.
  And, finally, we owe it to every American who sent us to the U.S. 
Senate to faithfully uphold the Constitution.
  Mr. President, that is all this amendment would do. Regardless of how 
Senators may have voted on this measure back in March, this would quite 
simply just provide expedited Supreme Court review in this field. This 
is something we have frequently done, as I indicated in my prepared 
remarks.
  I hope that this amendment will be cleared and accepted on both sides 
of the aisle.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the 
amendment by the Senator from Kentucky. But at the outset, I want to 
point out that inasmuch as this amendment came, we haven't had a chance 
to go back and check citations and check the references that he made in 
the speech. However, I would point out that at the outset, the simple 
and obvious undisputed fact is that the Governor of Kentucky does not 
like the idea of there being any disadvantaged business enterprise law 
in this great country, and wants very much to see it repealed. This 
amendment is no more and no less than a subterfuge for that. Frankly, 
as far as I can determine, it will effectively tie up the consideration 
of this legislation.
  I tried to listen as closely as I could to the Senator from Kentucky 
in his argument with regard to the reasons for the expedited 
consideration.
  I would point out that our Constitution provides a process, a 
procedure, for judicial review of legislation passed by this Congress, 
not the least of which requires the handling of a case in controversy. 
Those constitutional requirements and those procedures have been in 
place really since, I would say, the founding of this country. But that 
probably is not true. Marbury v. Madison was probably the first case in 
which the ability of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality 
of an act of Congress was upheld. And I think the precedent goes back 
to that.
  The Senator from Kentucky wants to have this Senate say that the 
procedure that has stood in very good stead for the consideration of 
all the legislation that we have passed over the last couple hundred 
years is not good enough when the issue is race; that it is not good 
enough when the issue is gender; and, that is not good enough when the 
issue is providing some avenue for bringing people into the main stream 
of our American economy who had heretofore been excluded from it.
  I point out that the DBE is shorthand for Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise. It is in the first instance a business enterprise. It says 
that of the contracting that takes place in transportation, it is only 
right, it is only fair, that women, that minorities--and minorities 
meaning a whole range of people--have an opportunity to participate as 
equal partners in the conduct of business for the development of the 
Nation's transportation system. This is not anything, or this should 
not be anything dramatic. This shouldn't, frankly, rattle any cages, 
particularly when one considers that the amount of contracting the last 
time I looked was less than 5 percent for women and for minorities.
  When you think about that, you are talking about women being roughly 
half the population of this country and minorities as roughly another 
40 percent or 30 percent of this country. So the majority of the 
population is allowed an opportunity to participate at a minority level 
in contracting under the Department of Transportation by virtue of this 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Act. It has obviously been a matter 
of controversy precisely because it speaks to open the door to women, 
it speaks to open the door to minorities, it speaks to Federal 
contracting activity under the auspices of, again, the Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise section of ISTEA, which is the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation and Efficiency Act.

  This has been a controversy to the extent that the Supreme Court has 
already taken the issue up in another context at least with regard to a 
State court law in the Adarand v. Pena case.
  In the Adarand v. Pena case, the Supreme Court said that the Federal 
Government must subject affirmative action programs to ``strict 
scrutiny,'' meaning that the programs must be ``narrowly tailored'' to 
meet a ``compelling government interest.''
  The Court explicitly in that case stated that affirmative action is, 
in fact, still necessary. It wrote, and I want to quote from the 
Adarand case:

       The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the 
     lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority 
     groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and the 
     government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.

  I will even take issue with that part of the dicta in the case in 
that the DBE law, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise law, applies 
not just to racial minorities; it applies not just to ethnic 
minorities, but applies to women as well.
  So we have a situation in which individuals who, because of their 
situation, their status, their station in society, had not been 
previously able to do business, start out with something of a 
disadvantage, and it is for that reason that the program was initiated 
to correct that imbalance to bring some fairness, to bring some equity, 
to bring some fair share of the spending of Federal contracting dollars 
with the majority-minority community.
  I say again, ``majority-minority'' community, because when you add 
women and African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, 
Asian Americans, all of the different groups included in the 
definition, the last time I looked, when you add all of the minority 
groups, when you add women, you are really talking about a majority of 
the population of this country. The DBE, Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise, section of the law allows them to participate in the 
transportation equity, in the Department of Transportation funding.
  The question is, Why are we here to talk about this amendment? What 
does this amendment do, and why does it seek to do it? Well, what this 
amendment says is that the minute someone comes in and says, ``Oh, my 
goodness, I don't think that this is constitutional,'' that the case 
has to be expedited; that the district court advance, expedite over 
everything else.
  That means, then, that if you are a district court judge, and someone 
comes in with a case that says, ``Ah-ha. I think that the program that 
is giving this female contractor the asphalt paving contract in my 
State, I think that is illegal.'' Then your case goes ahead of the 
murder cases on the docket; your case goes ahead of the drug cases on 
the docket; your case goes ahead of the antitrust cases on the docket; 
your case goes ahead of the civil rights cases on the docket; and your 
case goes ahead of everybody.
  We have to ask ourselves: Does this make any sense at all? Why is 
there such an egregious harm? What devastating occurrence has taken 
place that would give this claim a right to overcome everything else on 
a court's docket and make it go directly to the Supreme Court? Do not 
pass go, do not take advantage of the procedures that have been placed 
literally, in many instances, since the founding of this Republic.
  The Senator from Kentucky apparently thinks that opening up the door 
and allowing women and allowing minorities to have some part of the 
business enterprise of this country is just that egregious an 
occurrence that it ought to take precedence in its ability to be 
challenged in the courts; that we ought to throw aside hundreds of 
years of precedents in court, hundreds of years of procedure in order 
to make certain that a claim of this magnitude goes directly to the 
Supreme Court, and has an opportunity to be heard immediately before 
anybody else has the right to get protected.
  I submit to my colleagues that the logic of this amendment is what 
fails it the most. It is simply not logical to put aside everything 
else on a court's docket to avoid the court of appeals altogether, to 
take this dramatic move

[[Page S8898]]

to redress what injury. What injury? I think the Senator from Kentucky 
fails to demonstrate the injury. The Senator from Kentucky also fails 
to talk about what standing, what case or controversy, what issue would 
give rise again to the need to undo all of the procedures associated 
with the challenging of the constitutionality of cases in the courts of 
this country.
  So what this amendment really is about is attacking the legality of 
the DBE set-aside program through the side door. Would that it be 
through the back door, it would be even more direct. But this goes 
through a side door and takes with it the integrity of the court's 
procedures. This goes through a door that says, ``Whenever we don't 
like something in this Congress, we can just change the law and change 
the relationship between the courts and the executive branch and the 
legislative branch willy-nilly as we see fit and come up with a brand 
new procedure that we create out of whole cloth.''
  That is what this amendment does. It creates from whole cloth a 
process of appeal for a set of circumstances, again, the injury of 
which, frankly, escapes me, and I think escapes a number of our 
colleagues.
  I would point out that the front-door attack on the DBE Program 
failed, failed by 58 votes during the ISTEA debate, and it was, 
frankly, a very good thing, in my opinion. I understand the Senator 
from Kentucky and I see these things differently, but in my opinion it 
was a very good thing that a number of our colleagues recognized they 
would have to go home and explain to all of the women who had wanted to 
do business with the Department of Transportation the door was slammed 
in their face, and that wasn't a good thing. Then they would have to go 
home and explain to all of their minorities, be they racial minority or 
ethnic minority, why the door was slammed in their face. And that would 
not be a good thing.
  The amendment was defeated in the front-door attack, and so now the 
Senator from Kentucky has developed a way to come at it sideways by 
saying, We are not going to ourselves repeal it, or attempt to repeal 
it, because we cannot repeal it; we are not ourselves going to take on 
straight forward the legality or the propriety of the Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise Program, and we are not going to go in the back 
door, either. We are going to get in the side door. We are going to let 
anybody out there who might want to take up this cudgel for us, who 
might want to play politics in the courts for us, we are going to give 
them an opportunity to do it, and we are going to let them do it in an 
expedited way.
  Well, let me suggest that this is not a place where new judicial 
procedures ought to be supported. There is no reason for this new set 
of procedures or for this new expedited appeals process. This 
controversial amendment does not belong on this bill because, quite 
frankly, I believe this amendment in and of itself would be enough to 
bring down this bill. I don't think the Senator from Kentucky or 
anybody else wants to see something as important as this legislation go 
down over this novel, creative, innovative, imaginative, interesting 
but bizarre, legal procedure that is being suggested by the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  I have just received a note from the ranking member, and I don't know 
if he wants to say something or not, but, in any event, I certainly 
will defer to him and his leadership in this area. He has been 
exemplary over time.
  Mr. President, I plead with the Senator from Kentucky to refrain from 
the controversy that is about to be visited on this very important 
legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is not a complicated amendment. We 
had the debate back in March on the DBE Program and the Senate spoke. 
The Senate decided that it wanted to accept on faith that the 
administration would issue regulations that complied with the Adarand 
decision and the subsequent district court decision ruling the DBE 
Program to be unconstitutional. All the amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky does is provide for an expedited review of those regs once 
they are promulgated and litigated as they will certainly be litigated.
  It is not unusual on matters of extraordinary and constitutional 
significance for the Congress to say, ``We would like to get an 
expedited review, an answer to the issue.'' So that is all this 
amendment is about. It does not deal with the merits of the debate at 
all. The Senator from Kentucky did not support the program and did 
think the Senate ought to follow the Adarand case, but the Senator from 
Kentucky lost that debate, cheerfully, I might say, and all we are 
asking for here in this proposal is to get an expedited Supreme Court 
review of the new regs after they are promulgated.
  I, frankly, thought this amendment would be accepted and am somewhat 
surprised that we are having a debate about it. But that is all this 
amendment does. Regardless of how Senators may have voted on the DBE 
Program back in March, this is not about that. All this amendment does 
is obtain an expedited decision by the Supreme Court once some 
regulations are, at long last, promulgated.
  I see my friend from Alabama in the Chamber. Let me just mention a 
few other bills in which we did this. This is not unusual. We did it 
with the line-item veto, which the Supreme Court recently struck down. 
We had such a provision in the Communications Decency Act. We had it in 
the census sampling measure in last year's Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill. We had a similar provision in the D.C. Schools 
Opportunity Scholarships Act and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.
  Mr. President, this is not in any way extraordinary or unusual to 
hope that the Supreme Court might give us some expedited guidance is a 
matter of great importance.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Alabama in the Chamber. I am 
happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had occasion to study this issue 
previously, and there is a serious question this country is facing. I 
believe the Supreme Court has given attention and careful review to it. 
I believe they are very, very sensitive to the national interest in 
having minority citizens, minority groups be able to rise and succeed 
in our Nation. At the same time, I think the Supreme Court is troubled 
by a policy that, in effect, says you have a preference simply because 
of the color of your skin. In fact, I think that they have said Adarand 
could violate the Constitution of the United States. That is a serious 
matter. I believe the Adarand decision is well decided. I believe in my 
judgment, and I don't claim to be a Supreme Court Justice, but in my 
judgment the present statute that we passed is in violation of Adarand. 
But, regardless of that, the President has said that he can cure the 
problems of Adarand through regulations and they intend to issue 
regulations that would avoid this conflict. I am not sure that is 
possible. It may be. But what I hear the Senator from Kentucky to say 
is we are not here to debate that issue again. We are simply saying 
that if this law, and the regulations imposed by it, violate the 
Constitution of the United States, before we pass it we ought to set up 
a system in which there can be a prompt review by the courts to judge 
on that.

  That is all this does, it seems to me. I salute him for suggesting at 
least one small step that will reach a final conclusion of this matter.
  Before the Senate Judiciary Committee we had hearings on this matter. 
We had the lady who was married to the president of Adarand 
Corporation. She testified how they had suffered because of the set-
asides in the transportation law. I think it is a serious question. If 
it is outside the Constitution, they ought to have an expedited review.
  I think the Senator from Kentucky has proposed a reasonable, fair 
amendment. I think any of us ought to be able to support that. I thank 
him for doing so, and I look forward to continuing this healthy debate 
about how we ought to disperse the benefits in

[[Page S8899]]

this country, what standards should be applied, and how our goods and 
services ought to be dispersed. I suggest they should not be dispersed 
on the basis of the color of one's skin.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to. I have yielded the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Is the Senator from Alabama aware that the program 
applies not just to people based on the color of their skin, but also 
to women, as well as other ethnic groups who have not historically done 
business with the Department of Transportation?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, the Senator is quite correct. It does apply to a 
number of different circumstances. Some of those circumstances, I 
suggest, probably are constitutional. Many of those things may be 
required. Certain parts of it may not be. I suggest, with regard to 
those that may not be, let's go on and not have it take 3 years to get 
up through the court system. Let's have a review so there can be a 
prompt determination of what would be legitimate and what would not be.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3326.
  The amendment (No. 3326) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Shelby and the 
entire Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee for their work 
putting together this legislation. I would like to briefly engage my 
colleagues in a colloquy on an issue important to me and my 
constituents in Vermont; preservation of our nation's historic covered 
bridges. The recently passed federal transportation legislation, ISTEA-
2, contains language authorizing funding to protect historic wooden 
covered bridges. The National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Act 
asks the Secretary of Transportation to study the appropriate 
techniques to protect and preserve covered bridges, distribute this 
information to states and towns across the country and grant funds to 
fully repair and protect these beautiful old historic structures. The 
bill, that is now law, authorizes $10 million for these activities. I 
understand the difficulty my colleagues had in distributing funds in 
this legislation. Although no funds were directly appropriated for 
these activities, I would ask the Chairman of the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee if he would agree that preservation of 
historic covered bridges should be a priority?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Vermont that 
preserving our nation's historic covered bridges should be a priority 
for the U.S. Department of Transportation and transportation 
departments across the nation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Would the Senator agree that from available funds 
included in this legislation for the Federal Highway Administration 
that priority should be given to funding the collection and 
dissemination of information concerning historic covered bridges, 
conduct research on the history of historic covered bridges, and study 
the techniques for protecting historic covered bridges from rot, fire, 
natural disasters or weight related damage? Would the Senator agree 
that the Federal Highway Administration should use available funds to 
develop and publish guidance for implementation of the National 
Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Act?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Vermont that 
the Federal Highway Administration should make this a priority and move 
to publish guidance as soon as possible.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Would the Chairman of the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Committee agree that funding for the repair and 
reconstruction of covered bridges should be given priority within the 
Bridge Discretionary Program?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Vermont that 
every effort should be made by the Secretary of Transportation to use 
funds from within the Bridge Discretionary Program to repair and 
rehabilitate covered bridges across the nation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to thank both Chairman Chafee and Chairman 
Shelby for their commitment to covered bridges and for working with me 
to ensure that the program is fully funded within available funds at 
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Transportation Appropriations measure crafted by Senator Shelby. This 
bill takes a significant step forward in addressing the transportation 
needs of the nation, and more specifically of Washington state.
  As the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, I am especially pleased with 
the generous increase in funding for the Airport Improvement Program. 
The Airport Improvement Program provides valuable grants to fund the 
capital needs of the nation's commercial airports and general aviation 
facilities. It allows the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA 
Administrator to fund planning, design, and construction of airport 
projects directly affecting aircraft operations, including runways, 
aprons, and taxiways, with the purpose of maintaining a safe and 
efficient nationwide system of public use airports.
  Adequate funding for AIP is integral to addressing the infrastructure 
needs of our national aviation system. The GAO estimates that the gap 
between available funds and projected maintenance and construction 
costs for airports is almost $3 billion. The $2.1 billion included in 
this measure for AIP is a significant step toward bridging this gap. As 
the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, I will continue to look for the 
best possible way to assist the Appropriations Committee in meeting the 
infrastructure needs of our aviation system.
  Chairman Shelby also included several aviation related items that 
will have a positive impact on Washington state's airports. Inclusion 
of $6 million for the Contract Tower Cost-Sharing Pilot Program is 
certainly a positive development for my state. This new program, which 
I am also working on in the context of the FAA reauthorization measure, 
will allow local airports that fall below the eligibility criteria for 
the existing program to cost-share with the FAA. The $6 million 
included by Chairman Shelby will cover cost-sharing arrangements for 
approximately 30 contract towers across the country. Olympia and Felts 
Field are the two affected airports in Washington state that will be 
able to maintain their contract towers and, therefore, not diminish the 
current level of safety.
  I am pleased that the Chairman included $3 million for the Tactical 
(Transponder) Landing System. This system was recently certified by the 
FAA and could provide immense benefit to airports that are surrounded 
by geographical barriers such as mountainous terrain or approaches over 
water that render the current Instrument Landing System useless. With 
the installation of a TLS, Boeing field, whose current approach 
patterns cause significant noise problems for local residents, will be 
able to structure much more agreeable landing patterns. Moscow/Pullman 
airport, which is also named in the bill, should be an excellent test 
of the effectiveness of a TLS in mountainous terrain.
  I would also like to commend Chairman Shelby for giving priority 
consideration to Felts Field, Pangborn Field, Paine Field, and Spokane 
International airports, which all face unique problems that I look 
forward to working with the FAA to resolve in a safe and timely manner.

[[Page S8900]]

  This bill is not only positive for aviation. The Chairman has 
realized that innovative thinking and problem solving in the 
transportation field deserves priority consideration. This is 
demonstrated in the Transportation Planning, Research, and Development 
account, where the Chairman included two projects in Washington state 
that will serve as models for communities across the nation. The first 
is a freight mobility study instigated by the Kent, Washington Chamber 
of Commerce that will bring together representatives from federal, 
state, and local governments, as well as the shipping, trucking, and 
rail industries, along with organized labor, to brainstorm on ways we 
can make the existing system work better, realizing that we have finite 
resources with which to improve our aging infrastructure.
  The other Washington state project included in the Transportation 
Planning, Research and Development account is the Chehalis Basin/I-5 
Flooding project. Currently, flooding in the Interstate 5 corridor near 
Centralia/Chehalis in Washington state seriously compromises freight 
mobility, with damage and impact estimates of $50-80 million per day. 
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently 
planning to solve the problem by elevating the freeway for almost three 
miles. This would be a typical transportation project, but it would 
also exacerbate the flooding problem in the Chehalis River Basin and 
have extensive environmental impacts. The plan is estimated to cost $98 
million, with funding anticipated from the federal roads allocation to 
the states. As an alternative, Lewis County is leading a consortium of 
three counties (with Grays Harbor and Thurston), two cities (Centralia 
and Chehalis) and the Chebalis Tribe to eliminate the I-5 flooding 
problem by solving the flooding problem in the upper Chehalis River 
Basin. Work on this project is well-advanced, and cost estimates range 
between $60-80 million. I look forward to working with the Chairman to 
ensure a significant federal contribution to assist in the costly 
permitting process that will make this common sense alternative 
solution a reality.
  The Chairman was also very generous in his support for the Regional 
Transit Authority, which was recently renamed Sound Move. On November 
5, 1996, the voters of the Puget Sound region approved this $3.91 
billion transportation proposal. Sound Move will increase the capacity 
of the region's transportation system through a fix of light rail, 
commuter rail, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) expressways, regional 
express bus routes and ``community connections'' (such as park-and-ride 
lots and transit centers). Once completed, transit customers will be 
able to travel throughout a densely populated tri-county region in the 
state--Pierce, King and Snohomish counties--by local bus, regional bus, 
light rail and commuter rail, using a single ticket.
  By passing the Sound Move ballot measure, voters in the Puget Sound 
region agreed to provide the local funding portion of the plan through 
a .4 percent increase in the local sales tax and a .3 percent increase 
in the motor vehicle excise tax. These tax revenues will provide a 
stable, dependable, dedicated source of local revenue for building, 
maintaining and operating the system. Coupled with revenue collected 
from bonds and fareboxes, this funding will provide a 62 percent local 
match for the light rail and commuter rail portions of the project and 
over 80 percent of the total $3.91 billion project.
  Despite the voters' clear willingness to pay for an improved 
transportation system, the Regional Transit Authority needs federal 
financial assistance to successfully implement the light rail and 
commuter rail portions of this plan. The rail segment of the Sound Move 
proposal includes: a 25-mile light rail line with 26 stations between 
Seattle's University District and the City of SeaTac via downtown 
Seattle and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport; a 1.6-mile light 
rail line between downtown Tacoma and the Tacoma Dome train station; 
and an 81-mile commuter line using existing freight track between 
Everett and Lakewood with at least 14 stations.
  Mr. President, Sound Move is one of the most cost-effective projects 
in the nation, with one of the strongest local commitments. In fact, 
Sound Move ranked Medium/High in all categories in the recently 
released Department of Transportation FY `99 Report on Funding Levels 
and Allocation of Funds for Transit Major Capital Investments. These 
rankings demonstrate the overall strength of the project, which boasts 
ridership and cost effectiveness estimates that unquestionably rank it 
among the top new starts in the country. The voters around Puget Sound 
are eager to join the federal government in making this project a 
reality and it is my hope that the $60 million included in this measure 
for the rail component of Sound Move will be supplemented by the full 
$18 million which was included in the House bill for buses.
  Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank the chairman for 
crafting a fair measure that adequately funds our national priorities 
while realizing and addressing the unique transportation problems 
facing Washington state.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has completed action on several 
of the annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government and 
its many programs.
  The appropriations bills that have cleared the Senate to date contain 
many good provisions and generally provide appropriate levels of 
funding to continue the necessary functions of the federal government. 
But, Mr. President, these bills regretfully continue the practice of 
earmarking billions of taxpayers dollars for pork-barrel projects.
  Over my tenure in Congress, I have consistently fought Congressional 
earmarks that direct money to particular projects or recipients, 
believing that such decisions are far better made through competitive, 
merit-based guidelines and procedures.
  Traditionally, earmarking has been more geared to political interests 
rather than public needs and priorities. Highway demonstration 
projects, earmarked by Congress, have been a classic case-in-point. 
Most of these projects, which totals more than $9 billion in the 
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), don't even 
appear on state priority lists.
  The same is true for many other Congressional earmarks. I find this 
an appalling waste of taxpayer dollars. And, S. 2307 is typical of the 
types of earmarks and set-asides that Members add to the multi-billion 
dollar appropriations bills we annually consider.
  This bill and report earmark more than $1.1 billion for site-specific 
bridge repairs and airport projects, research activities at selected 
universities, intelligent transportation projects, ferry systems, road 
improvements in ski areas, state-specific snow removal activities, bus 
purchases and transit projects.
  Mr. President, S. 2307 continues Amtrak's subsidies yet goes so far 
to concoct yet a new spending scheme to pay for its operating costs. I 
will be proposing an amendment to ensure Amtrak's financial situation 
is not a moving target and that the integrity of the reform legislation 
enacted just over six months ago is not jeopardized by the proposals in 
this measure.
  This bill further earmarks several million dollars of Amtrak's 
capital funds for new projects associated with Amtrak. The Committee 
report earmarks $1.4 million to relocate an Amtrak passenger station in 
Pennsylvania, $2.5 million to refurbish two turbo trainsets for 
Amtrak's empire corridor, and $1 million to install a speed monitoring 
system on locomotives operating between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA. 
The report also directs that $800,000 be used to restore the historic 
Southern Pines, NC, railroad station, which is owned by the State of 
North Carolina and served by Amtrak's Silver Star route.
  Didn't the Congress agree last year that Amtrak needs to operate like 
a legitimate business? Isn't that why we approved legislation which 
placed Amtrak on a glidepath to free itself of operating subsidies? How 
is directing Amtrak to carry out these projects or requiring it to 
spend its resources on certain stations going to help Amtrak ever 
achieve its financial goals? Amtrak should be permitted to expend its 
funds on those projects it deems most critical, not on projects 
required by the whims of Congress.

[[Page S8901]]

  Mr. President, in addition to the types of earmarking I have 
mentioned, the Appropriators have taken a number of actions that fall 
squarely under the authorizers' duties. For example, the bill would 
prohibit the Coast Guard from implementing any new navigation user 
fees. This means the Administration would be prevented from 
implementing even reasonable new user fees. I understand the concerns 
that the user fee proposed by the Administration are discriminatory in 
that they would target only certain users of the navigation system, but 
the language in the bill is overly restrictive.
  Mr. President, there are some small earmarks in this year's 
transportation appropriations bill as well as some very large earmarks. 
For example:
  More than 80 percent of the total funding provided for Intelligent 
Transportation Systems deployment projects are earmarked. The bill 
specifically sets aside more than $84 million for projects in 20 cities 
and counties, and in 13 states.
  Although no dollar amounts are set for individual bus projects, the 
bill prohibits the Federal Transit Administration from using any of the 
$393,550,000 provided in the bill for any project not designated in S. 
2307. All of the 150 TEA-21 authorized bus projects are included in the 
bill, and more than 150 new projects are named. Some of these projects 
have been earmarked in the past and others are new additions to the bus 
earmark parade.
  The appropriators have earmarked all of the $902,800,000 provided for 
the new transit and transit system extensions program. Many of the 
projects are unauthorized and were not requested by the Administration.
  Examples of the earmarks for unauthorized projects include $2.5 
million for multimodal transportation in Albuquerque/Santa Fe, New 
Mexico; $8 million for a transitway corridor in North Miami; and 
$250,000 for a micro rail trolley system in Sioux City, IA.
  Why are the appropriators so reluctant to permit projects to be 
awarded based on a competitive and meritorious process that would be 
fair for all the states and local communities? I suspect it is due to 
the fact they doubt the merits and worth of the very projects they are 
earmarking.
  The bill contains a legislative amendment to section 1110 of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). By 
making a simple definitional change, the provision would modify ANILCA 
to permit helicopters to land in all conservation system units in 
Alaska, including National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, National 
Parks, and National Wilderness Areas. The legislative changes could 
result in large-scale helicopter tourism in these sensitive 
conservation system units. The transportation appropriations bill is 
not the appropriate forum to address a controversial environmental 
issue. A helicopter's ability to hover over an area is disruptive to 
wildlife, including large game species and nesting birds. In addition, 
the capability of a helicopter to land in areas where airplanes cannot 
causes concern for the integrity of the habitat.
  I have only mentioned a few of the examples of earmarks and special 
projects contained in this measure and I will not waste the time of the 
Senate going over each and every earmark.
  Mr. President, I also want to express the critical need for Congress 
to send a very clear message to Secretary Slater regarding the 
Department of Transportation's treatment of the committee report 
accompanying this bill. Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing on the 
Department's actions regarding discretionary funding decisions. Believe 
it or not, some of the DOT modal administrations do not even understand 
the clear delineation regarding statutory bill language and a committee 
report. While I did my best to impress upon these modes--particularly 
the Federal Transit Administration--that report language does not have 
the effect of law, I am still not sure they get it.
  Therefore, I urge Secretary Slater to take immediate action to 
educate his Department on the very clear and significant differences 
between the bill language and report language. Report language is not 
law. Report language does not have the effect of law. Report language 
is advisory. It's as simple as that.


                      contract tower cost-sharing

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Transportation appropriations subcommittee about the provision in the 
bill that includes $6 million for an FAA contract tower cost-sharing 
program. I have several contract towers in my stat that would benefit 
greatly from such a program. What is the intention of this provision?
  Mr. SHELBY. The FAA contract tower program has been proven to be a 
very cost-effective way for the FAA and local airports to work as 
partners to improve air traffic safety in many smaller communities. In 
fact, the Department of Transportation Inspector General recently 
determined that the program provides quality air traffic control 
services at a lower cost compared to the FAA. This cost-sharing program 
would enable some airports that fall just below the eligibility 
criteria for a contract tower to retain their air traffic control 
services by paying for a share of the costs. The Committee believes 
that this program will improve aviation safety in small communities at 
a minimal expense to the FAA.


   highway research and development, bridge structures and the utah 
                         transportation center

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to enter a colloquy with the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations, Senator 
Shelby. The topic of my colloquy addresses the ongoing design/build 
work on Interstate 15 through the Salt Lake Valley and the unique 
opportunity this project presents to conduct seismic and other bridge 
structure research on existing overpasses that will soon be replaced.
  I would like to thank the Transportation Appropriations Chairman for 
his interest and support of research on Interstate 15 bridge structures 
during the reconstruction of this important segment of highway. The 
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations included language in its 
report (105-249, page 96) which provides $2,000,000 for research on 
Interstate 15 bridge structures. This report language directs the 
Federal Highway Administration to make this money available to the Utah 
Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Utah Transportation Center 
(UTC), Chairman Shelby, am I correct in understanding that UDOT was 
included in this language primarily to facilitate the flow of these 
federal funds to the Utah Transportation Center which will administer 
the research done by Utah State University, University of Utah and 
Brigham Young University?
  Mr. SHELBY. My colleague from Utah is correct in his understanding of 
this situation. Since the Federal Highway Administration already has a 
relationship developed with UDOT, the Committee included the state 
agency to facilitate the flow of these research funds to the Utah 
Transportation Center made up by the universities mentioned. The 
Committee believes that these funds should be made available to the UTC 
expeditiously so that this opportunity for bridge structure research is 
not lost.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee for his 
clarification and I thank the Chair for its time and attention on the 
Senate Floor.


  Southwest Florida International Airport Application for a Letter of 
                                 Intent

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, southwest Florida is one of the fastest 
growing areas in the country. Not surprisingly it is also my 
understanding that RSW is the third fastest growing airport in the 
United States. Additionally, I am told RSW has experienced an average 
annual growth of 9.2 percent over the past ten years.
  Due to this unprecedented growth, RSW has embarked upon a major 
expansion program which includes construction of a new terminal and 
runway. This project is one of the State of Florida's most important 
airport projects and it has received substantial funding from the 
State. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration has provided 
discretionary funding for this worthy project due, in no small part, to 
the support of the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, and his subcommittee over 
the past two years through the prior Transportation Appropriations 
bills. I very much appreciate the support of the Senator for RSW and 
its expansion project.

[[Page S8902]]

  Additionally, as the Senator may be aware, earlier this year RSW 
submitted a request for a Letter of Intent to the FAA in order to 
support their expansion project from the agency. Over the course of the 
last several years, recognizing the budget constraints which the FAA 
must operate under, RSW officials have worked hard to significantly 
reduce the federal share of this project by more than 30 percent.
  I believe the Chairman of the Subcommittee can appreciate the efforts 
of RSW, in working with the FAA, to craft a plan which meets the needs 
of the airport yet substantially cuts costs in an effort to remain 
within the FAA's anticipated budget constraints. I feel confident this 
is the type of cooperation from a project which the FAA should consider 
for priority LOI consideration.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his 
comments regarding our subcommittee's past support of the Southwest 
Florida International Airport. The Senator has been very active in 
keeping the subcommittee informed on the progress of the expansion at 
RSW. Because of this, I am well aware of the intense growth that this 
airport has experienced over the past several years.
  Likewise, I am aware of the efforts of RSW to work with the FAA in 
developing an LOI request, and that this effort has resulted in a 
substantial reduction in their request, making it reasonable within 
today's budget environment. I believe the behavior and efforts 
exhibited by RSW in working with the FAA, as well as their established 
need, are exactly the sorts of things the FAA should be looking for 
when considering LOI requests. Accordingly, I encourage the FAA to give 
priority consideration to RSW's request for a Letter of Intent.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his past commitment 
and support of the Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) and 
look forward to continue working with him in the future.


                   Keep Helicopters Out of Wilderness

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are maybe thirty-five legislative 
days left this Congress. We have passed six out of thirteen 
appropriations--and those have been the easier ones. Now--we are facing 
the appropriations bills that are bogged down with legislative riders 
and have already invoked Presidential veto threats.
  The Transportation Appropriations bill though is fairly clean and we 
might be able to pass it tonight. Unfortunately, the temptation to put 
environmental riders on this bill could not be resisted. Section 342 of 
this bill will overturn eighteen years of national environmental 
policy, open some of the most pristine wilderness in the country to 
helicopter landings.
  Mr. President, I was here when the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act was passed by Congress. I remember the careful balance 
that was crafted to pass this landmark legislation. The question of 
allowing helicopters was raised at that time and the answer we came up 
with was to not allow them in wilderness areas except for emergency 
situations. If you look at the legislative history included in the 
Senate Report for ANILCA it specifically lists what transportation was 
allowed in wilderness areas and helicopters are not one of them.
  Instead, it directed the Secretary of the Interior to allow airplanes 
to be used in wilderness areas for traditional activities. Mr. 
President, I understand why this exception to the national Wilderness 
Act was made for Alaska and I supported it at the time. But I supported 
it as part of a larger compromise. One that this language will now 
undo.
  Two years ago, the Forest Service conducted an Environmental Impact 
Statement on this same proposal and concluded that helicopters were not 
airplanes and were not a traditional means of access to the wilderness 
areas. Obviously, some of my colleagues do not like this conclusion and 
felt that tacking an environmental rider onto the transportation 
appropriation bill was the best way to get around it.
  The Interior Department has also objected to this language due to the 
impact on wildlife in these wilderness areas. Mr. President, I think we 
all know that a helicopter flying overhead is much louder than a small 
airplane flying overhead. Helicopters blast the adjacent area with a 
minimum of 100 decibels or more.
  But this language is not about just sheer noise. It is also about 
allowing helicopters to hover and land anywhere in these areas--the 
remote reaches of the Tongass National Forest, the glaciers of Kenai 
Fjords National Park and even the inlets of Glacier Bay.
  Although it may seem like it now, I am not the only person speaking 
out against this language. I have over thirty five letters from 
outfitters, bush pilots and tour guides in Alaska who oppose this 
language.
  So, Mr. President, I simply ask: What is the rush? Why are we 
including language in a transportation appropriations bill that 
rewrites legislation that has been on the books for eighteen years, on 
which no hearings have been held and that has been recommended for a 
veto?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my concern about 
Section 342 of the Senate FY 99 Transportation Appropriations Bill. 
That section creates an exception in the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act allowing helicopter landings by the general public on 
federally-designated wilderness and other protected lands within 
Alaska.
  Federal wilderness lands in Alaska are covered by two federal laws: 
the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, known as ANILCA. To describe the interaction of these 
statutes in more detail, Mr. President, the Wilderness Act establishes 
a federal definition of wilderness, and governs the use and 
administration of land within the various states that have been 
designated by Congress as federal wilderness. ANILCA, which passed in 
1980, is the statute which designated various lands within the state of 
Alaska as federal wilderness. It also conferred other federal land use 
designations, creating parks, monuments and other protected status 
lands in Alaska.
  The reason I am concerned about Section 342 of the bill before us is 
that it replaces the word ``airplane'' with ``aircraft'' within ANILCA. 
Though such a change would appear benign to those who do not know the 
statute well. However, that is not the case. The practical effect of 
the proposed amendment would be to permit helicopter landings by the 
general public in federal wilderness areas and other protected lands in 
Alaska.
  Why is this such a concern, Mr. President? There are two major 
reasons why I find this one-word switch troubling. First, expanding the 
type of aircraft allowed in federal wilderness areas violates the 
Wilderness Act and sets an alarming precedent.
  Section 1110 of ANILCA presently permits the general public use, on 
lands protected under the act, of ``snow machines, motorboats, 
airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for 
traditional activities.'' Although airplane use is specifically 
permitted in Alaska under ANILCA, helicopter landings by the general 
public are prohibited in all federal wilderness. However, helicopter 
landings are permitted on a discretionary basis by the federal land 
management agencies for emergency situations. All public lands in 
Alaska allow helicopters to land for that purpose.
  I strongly support allowing helicopters in wilderness areas to rescue 
injured or lost visitors. And those uses are already allowed. However, 
I have concerns about allowing helicopter landings in wilderness for 
other than emergency reasons, for purely recreational purposes.
  In my home state of Wisconsin, people love the wilderness areas they 
visit such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the 
wilderness areas in the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests. The 
reason they love those places, Mr. President, is not only because they 
are among the most beautiful spots in the Upper Midwest, but also 
precisely because they are remote and are challenging to reach. 
National Parks are beautiful places. I support them, and I visit them 
with my family. However, National Parks, which have roads and 
restaurants and maintained campsites, are not the same as the lands 
protected under the Wilderness Act. National Parks are maintained for 
public access, wilderness areas by contrast, are areas where one can 
bring one's canoe and tent and hike in, or fly to in a float plane, as 
permitted today

[[Page S8903]]

under ANILCA. By these means of transportation visitors can enter 
wilderness areas in a relatively low impact manner.
  Allowing helicopters into wilderness areas would mean managing lands, 
that according to the Wilderness Act are supposed to remain undisturbed 
by human access, in a contradictory manner. Imagine being in a remote 
spot surrounded by nature on a nice getaway and having a helicopter 
land right next to you to drop people off for an afternoon of wandering 
around? I believe we should not sacrifice the very reasons we have 
protected wilderness in an effort to increase access to the wilderness. 
If it's easy to get to, it's not a wilderness.
  Second, Congress and federal land management agencies have already 
considered the issue of helicopter use on wilderness lands in Alaska 
and have found it to be inappropriate and incompatible. The Forest 
Service has explicitly considered and rejected helicopters in Alaska's 
wilderness. In 1997, the Forest Service completed an EIS specifically 
addressing helicopter landings in more limited circumstances than the 
language in this bill. At that time, the proposal was to allow 
helicopters in areas other than specifically designated wildlife, 
cultural resource, and research areas. Section 342 would allow 
helicopters in all areas.
  The legislative history of ANILCA also specifically excluded 
helicopters from lands designated under that Act. The Senate Energy 
Committee considered special access to lands subject to ANILCA, and the 
Committee Report stated ``the transportation modes covered by this 
section are float and ski planes, snowmachines, motor boats, and 
dogsleds.''
  Congress has already considered this issue, Mr. President, and we 
have found that helicopters for general public access do not have a 
place in Alaska's wilderness areas. I would urge that we not go back on 
this sound judgment. I yield the floor.


                                 AMTRAK

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very concerned over this bill's 
proposal concerning Amtrak's funding and will offer an amendment to 
ensure the proposed scheme does not jeopardize the integrity of the 
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, P.L. 105-134, enacted on December 
2, 1997.
  Congress worked for a number of years in a bipartisan manner and each 
side accepted compromises in order to provide Amtrak with the statutory 
reforms it said it needed to allow it a real chance to meet its 
financial goals. The reform bill was based on both Amtrak's Strategic 
Business Plan, a plan charting Amtrak's financial operating and capital 
needs, and its federal grant request. And of course, its ultimate 
approval was the key to releasing the $2.2 billion ``tax credit'' for 
capital investment.
  As my colleagues well know, I am not a proponent of a system that was 
intended to be privatized two years after it was created in 1971, but 
instead today has racked up more than $21 billion in taxpayer support 
even though it serves less than one percent of the traveling public. 
However, I worked in good faith with my colleagues and compromised to 
enable enactment of a legitimate reform bill.
  I have been standing by the deal I cut. I have done nothing to hinder 
Amtrak nor have I offered proposals to prevent it from having the 
opportunity to fulfill its goals. But am I the only one who believes a 
deal is a deal?
  Mr. President, I am sick and tired of the Administration and Amtrak 
seeking to change the agreement which is law.
  First the law required the establishment of an 11-member Amtrak 
Reform Council (ARC) comprised of individuals appointed by the House, 
Senate, and the President. The ARC is responsible for evaluating 
Amtrak's performance and make recommendations to Amtrak for further 
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. The 
ARC is required to submit annual reports to Congress and it is 
responsible for determining if Amtrak is meeting its financial goals.
  While the House and Senate fulfilled its duties to appoint its 
members, the President has yet to make all of his appointments. As 
such, Senator Lott, myself, and Congressman Shuster encouraged the 
appointed members to meet and begin carrying out its duties.
  It seems the Administration thought they could hold up the ARC from 
doing its work if it dragged its feet long enough but that is not the 
case. In fact, the Department of Transportation even resisted 
fulfilling its administrative duties associated with the ARC in an 
attempt to hinder the ARC. But the ARC members have not let DOT hold 
them back and they have begun a steady meeting schedule.
  Next the law called for a new Reform Board to replace the Amtrak 
Board of Directors serving at the time of enactment. Since we expect 
Amtrak to try to reinvent itself and to operate like a real business, 
we included a provision to allow a new leadership to guide Amtrak and 
instill a ``new culture'' among Amtrak employees and management.
  Mr. President, several provisions concerning the establishment of the 
new Board were included in the reform bill in an attempt to prompt 
timely action by the Administration and Congress. Unfortunately, the 
spirit of these provisions was met with little regard.
  The law required the new Board to be in place by March 31, 1998. Yet, 
the Senate did not receive even a single nomination from the President 
until the eve of the Memorial Day Recess. Due to concerns that the 
Administration may drag its feet indefinitely, Amtrak's authorization 
was linked to the nomination and confirmation of a new Board. 
Specifically, the law provides that if the new Reform Board has not 
assumed the responsibilities of the Amtrak Board of Directors before 
July 1st, Amtrak's authorization would lapse. The law also 
automatically discharged pending Board nominations from the Senate 
Commerce Committee if the Committee had failed to act by June 1st.
  Presidential nominations require Senate confirmation, with hearings 
and review by the appropriate Senate Committees accompanying 
nominations. Yet due to the lack of timely action by the 
Administration, the Commerce Committee had no opportunity to carry out 
its duties prior to the statutory automatic June 1st discharge. It is 
my view the Administration's timing was a direct attempt to circumvent 
the Commerce Committee's authority in this regard.
  Mr. President, my position regarding the new Board was made clear 
from day one. I repeatedly voiced my concerns to the Administration 
each time I heard rumors of its plans to reappoint current members. I 
was very clear that the Commerce Committee would not report favorably 
any Board hold-overs and I remained firm on that position. I truly 
believed even the Administration would acknowledge we didn't create a 
new Board only to reappoint the same members.
  So what happened? The Administration sent up the nominations as 
Congress headed into a recess. Two of the six nominations needing 
confirmation were Board holdovers--that is, one-third. As I have said 
before, the Administration must have known that the Commerce Committee 
would be unable to fulfill its hearings and review prior to the 
statutory discharge date, given the Administration's stealth nomination 
submission.
  However, in an effort to ensure Amtrak's authorization remained 
intact, I again worked in good faith with the Majority Leader and 
others to confirm some of the nominations in order to meet the 
deadline. The Commerce Committee now has an opportunity to consider 
whether the pending Board nominees should be approved and sent to the 
full Senate for a vote.
  The law further provides for Amtrak to be free of operating subsidies 
within five years. If the ARC determines Amtrak is not meeting its 
fiscal goals, the ARC is to develop a plan for an alternative system. 
At the same time, Amtrak is to develop a plan for its liquidation. If 
at such time this occurs, the Congress will then need to approve a 
restructuring plan, or the liquidation proceeds.
  As I've mentioned, the sunset trigger is contingent upon Amtrak 
meeting its fiscal goals and being free of operating subsidies by 
fiscal year 2002. Yet the Administration is again attempting to get 
around the law. And this time, the Appropriators are helping. .
  The Appropriation bill proposes to permit Amtrak to pay for its 
operating expenses with its capital funds. I am told this proposal is 
strictly due to budgetary scoring concerns. However, I am not sold.

[[Page S8904]]

  With the stroke of a pen, this bill jeopardizes the integrity of the 
reform bill--specifically the sunset trigger. Amtrak's proponents could 
just waive this bill as a demonstration that Amtrak is free of 
operating subsidies, since the bill does not include a line item for 
operating expenses as historically has been the case.
  As I see it, Amtrak and the Administration are simply attempting to 
shift operating expenses into its capital budget, thereby backing away 
from agreements reached last year during the hard-fought 
reauthorization process. While the reauthorization placed a cap on the 
amount of money that may be appropriated in any one year for 
operational expenses or capital investments, the authorized levels were 
based on Amtrak's own projected financial needs.
  Mr. President, during the last days of negotiations on the reform 
legislation, you may recall certain members of the Amtrak Board of 
Directors negotiated a new labor agreement which raised salaries for 
union employees, thereby incurring a substantial increase in its 
operational costs. Amtrak's projected net loss for FY 1998 is greater 
than the previous year's in part due to the Board's own actions. Yet, 
the Board assured us at the time that the labor agreement would require 
no action by Congress--nor more importantly, would the labor agreement 
place any additional obligations on the American taxpayers. However, 
shifting labor costs into the ``capital'' account could clearly result 
in the taxpayers once again being forced to cover expenses due to 
Amtrak's poor management decisions.
  We authorized Amtrak at funding levels based on its own projected 
needs. Further, we directed an independent financial assessment of 
Amtrak be carried out under the direction of the Inspector General of 
the Department of Transportation. That audit will be based in part on 
Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan, including its projected operating and 
capital costs. Should Amtrak be permitted to significantly change the 
way it accounts for operating and capital expenses, an accurate 
accounting could be next to impossible. The proposed change in the use 
of capital funds raises legitimate concerns whether Amtrak and the 
Administration may be attempting to keep Amtrak's financial situation 
and Strategic Business Plan projections a moving target.
  Further, we have continually been told Amtrak has critical capital 
investment needs. Yet, I am told that more than $500 million of the 
$621 million for capital would likely go to cover labor and other 
operational costs under this latest proposed scheme. If Amtrak is 
permitted to shift capital funds to cover what traditionally have been 
considered operating costs, how will Amtrak make up for the 
corresponding loss in funding for its capital improvements? Time and 
again we have been told Amtrak faces critical infrastructure investment 
needs which must be met if Amtrak is to have any chance of becoming a 
viable operation. Time and again we have been told Amtrak needed a 
dedicated source of capital. As I see it, the change has the very real 
potential for jeopardizing Amtrak's abilities to meet its capital needs 
which it has sought so long to accomplish.
  Therefore, the amendment I will offer is intended to retain some 
semblance of legitimacy to P.L. 105-134.


           bus funding for northern new mexico park and ride

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I know the Chairman and Ranking Member are aware of the 
proposal in the state of New Mexico to start up a new park and ride 
transit system that would serve the cities of Los Alamos, Pojoaque, 
Espanola, and Santa Fe. I first brought this exciting proposal to the 
senators' attention last September. Is the Chairman also aware that 
last August the State of New Mexico ran a two-week trial run of the 
proposed transit system and that the demonstration was an enormous 
success, with over 1500 riders per day and an estimated reduction of 
750 vehicles?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes, Senator, I am aware of the success of the state of 
New Mexico's initial two-week demonstration of the Northern New Mexico 
Park and Ride.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I know the Senators are aware that, at my request, last 
year the subcommittee provided $1.5 million to the state to begin full-
time transit service in Northern New Mexico this fall using leased 
buses and borrowed facilities. Is the Ranking Member also aware that 
the commitment of the local governments to the program has also been 
demonstrated by individual contributions of $100,000 each from the City 
of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, Los Alamos County, and the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, Senator Bingaman, I am aware of the funding 
commitments from the local governments and Los Alamos Lab for the 
Northern New Mexico Park and Ride.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Is my understanding correct that for fiscal year 1999 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee did not identify 
individual programs and funding amounts for discretionary grants for 
bus and bus facilities, but that the conference with the other body may 
present an opportunity to identify individual projects and funding 
amounts? If that is indeed the case, can the citizens of Northern New 
Mexico count on the Senators' efforts to identify $10 million to 
purchase the needed buses and bus facilities to allow the Park and Ride 
program to continue beyond the first year?
  Mr. SHELBY. The Senator can be assured we will give the project our 
full consideration in the conference.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate knowing of the Senator from New Mexico's 
interest in the Northern new Mexico Park and Ride.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators for their consideration.


      construction of the new castle county airport control tower

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening on behalf of myself and 
my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Bill Roth, to note 
the importance of a project at the New Castle County Airport in 
Delaware that involves the Federal Aviation Administration, and to ask 
the help of the managers of this bill.
  In an extraordinary--and what is believed to be the first-of-its-kind 
offer--the owners of the New Castle County Airport--a bi-state compact 
known as the Delaware River and Bay Authority--has agreed to pay the 
approximately $5 million it will cost to construct and equip a new 
control tower. This facility will replace the 43-year old existing 
tower which does not meet federally-mandated safety and environmental 
standards.
  The FAA, however, has now taken the position that not only should the 
Delaware River and Bay Authority finance the cost to design and 
construct a new control tower, but also pay $2.3 million for the FAA's 
overhead, equipment and administrative costs to oversee the project.
  In addition, the FAA wants the sponsor to reimburse the agency $1 
million for costs related to the relocation of the FAA's Very High 
Frequency radar system (VOR) at the Airport--even though the FAA's 
current lease indicates the FAA should bear such costs.
  With the Airport sponsor willing to finance the significant cost of 
constructing a new control tower for the FAA, the agency should not 
impose additional overhead costs on that sponsor.
  The owners of the Airport have worked diligently and cooperatively 
with the FAA for the past three years on this project, but continue to 
encounter further financial demands and bureaucratic delays.
  Clearly, this new control tower will help the FAA. Not only will the 
FAA get a new, state-of-the-art tower at no cost, if the New Castle 
County Airport is able to expand, it will help the FAA solve the 
growing problem of air traffic congestion at major commercial airports 
in Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York.
  We believe it is in the best safety interests of all parties--the 
FAA, the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and most importantly the 
flying public--that this critical airport in Delaware be allowed to 
construct a new control tower facility for the FAA, without additional 
financial demands and delays.
  It's our understanding that the House Appropriations Committee Report 
accompanying the FY'99 Transportation Appropriations bill specifically 
directs the FAA to assume the approximate $3.3 million in overhead 
costs. I rise today to bring this important issue to the attention of 
the Chairman and

[[Page S8905]]

Ranking Member and to seek your help in working to include this House 
language in the Conference Report.
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes, we appreciate the concerns raised by the Senators 
from Delaware. We agree with the House Report language and want to 
assure you that we will work with you to ensure that these additional 
overhead costs are not imposed on the airport sponsor willing to 
construct the new control tower.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend 
the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
Senator Shelby, for the work he has done on this bill. It is not easy 
to balance the competing interests in any appropriations bill, but I 
think it is even more difficult on transportation appropriations. I 
would also like to call attention to one area of the Senate's bill 
which is very different than the House version.
  The Federal Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) Program, which 
began in the late 1980's, is sponsored by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the 
Department of Defense (DoD) and currently includes over 860 ASOS units. 
For its part, as of December 2, 1997, the FAA had procured 569 ASOS 
units. Yet only 297 of these units had been commissioned as of June 16, 
1998.
  The current Senate bill provides $20.97 million for the Automated 
Surface Observing System (ASOS). This amount is $11 million more than 
the Administration request. According to the Committee report, $9.9 
million is to be used to commission systems that have already been 
purchased. This only makes sense. After all, the Federal government 
purchased these systems. They might as well be used.
  Last year, Congress appropriated $10 million more than the 
Administration request to procure nearly 30 more ASOS units. If the 
past is an accurate indicator, these units will sit idle until FAA 
finds the funds to commission them. In essence, what we are doing is 
purchasing technology with great potential but fraught with high 
maintenance costs and are going to be unusable for a number of years 
when, it is my understanding that there are other alternatives that 
cost less and can be used immediately. In fact, I understand that one 
of these alternatives, the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) is 
very popular in many states, including the Chairman's home state of 
Alabama.
  I would draw my colleague's attention to the action taken yesterday 
by the House Committee on Appropriations. In its companion to the bill 
before us, that panel declined to fund any of these systems for the 
coming fiscal year but noted the Senate Committee's action. The House 
report language says that both systems (AWOS and ASOS) are 
``meritorious'' and takes the strong position that if additional 
funding beyond the Administration's request is provided in the final 
conference action, that ``an equitable distribution'' of the additional 
funding should be provided for both systems.
  I strongly support the action taken by our House colleagues and urge 
my good friend, the Chairman of the Subcommittee to join me to inject 
fairness, cost-effectiveness and competition into this program.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his statement. I have 
listened with interest to his remarks and recognize his concerns. The 
Senator from Ohio has raised very compelling arguments and I will 
carefully consider his request during the conference committee's 
deliberations.
  Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage Senator Shelby in a colloquy with 
respect to an issue of importance to my State of Wisconsin and the 
entire Midwest Region. As you may know, Wisconsin and eight other 
Midwestern states, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nebraska and Ohio, working with Amtrak, have undertaken 
planning studies of a Midwest regional rail system to be hubbed in 
Chicago. The regional rail system would provide modern service on all 
existing rail corridors as well as several new corridors within the 
nine-state region. By connecting major Midwestern metropolitan areas, 
ridership and revenue projections have revealed that the rail network 
would operate without subsidy, enhance regional economic development 
and increase mobility in corridors with congested highway systems. To 
date, the states and Amtrak have contributed $468,500. The Federal 
Railroad Administration has also contributed $200,000 to this endeavor. 
I understand that the Committee grappled with unique constraints this 
year due to the firewalls created by the Transportation Equity Act, the 
so-called TEA-21. Implementation planning funds are needed, however, to 
move this important project forward. For this reason, I do hope that I 
can count on your assistance if additional resources become available 
in conference and as this process moves forward.
  Mr. SHELBY. I know this initiative was of interest to the senior 
Senator from Wisconsin and that you had requested funds so that your 
State and the other Midwestern states could complete detailed 
implementation planning. As you know, we were unable to fund high speed 
rail corridor planning studies in the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations bill due to budget constraints. However, I will work 
with you and if we revisit this issue in conference and take another 
look at corridor planning studies, I assure you that the Midwest Rail 
initiative will receive every consideration.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss a provision in 
this legislation which I was pleased to sponsor. The interstate network 
of railroads faces several problems. As you are aware, several areas in 
the United States currently experience serious rail freight congestion. 
We frequently hear of delays on the delivery of goods for two to three 
weeks because of rail congestion. With more train traffic, there has 
also been an increase in rail related accidents. There is no 
comprehensive system which manages the interface between trains and 
cars at the huge number of highway crossings in the United States. In 
South Carolina alone, there are 32,000 crossings. This situation is 
compounded in many parts of the country. Congestion is worsened and 
safety is jeopardized because passenger trains, high-speed trains, and 
freight trains all use the same track.
  Unlike the national tracking of air traffic that assures millions of 
safe passenger air miles each year, comprehensive automated management 
and control of movement and location in the rail industry does not 
exist. The Transportation Safety Research Alliance, a non-profit 
public/private partnership which includes industry and research 
institutions, is seeking to develop an advanced, integrated technology 
system that would provide direction, movement, and highway crossing 
control for the rail freight industry. Without such a system, we are 
going to experience more accidents endangering the public safety and 
more delays to shippers and consumers that harm the Nation's commerce. 
This bill includes language directing the Federal Railroad 
Administration to provide $500,000 towards the development of this 
project. I want to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Shelby, and 
the Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, for including this language. I 
appreciate your leadership in the Conference to ensure that this 
provision is included in the Conference Report.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I also wish to express my support for this provision. 
One of the key industry members of the Transportation Safety Alliance, 
Union Switch and Signal, is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
They manufacture signaling automation and control systems for 
railroads, and are at the cutting edge of an industry which can help 
our country achieve greater rail safety in the 21st century.
  Senator LAUTENBERG. The issue of rail safety in this country is of 
great importance to me. I appreciate your comments, and will work to 
keep this provision in the Conference Report.


            advanced civil speed enforcement systems upgrade

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, that I note with 
interest that the report on the bill before us provides funds in the 
amount of $1 million for the upgrade of safety systems on all 
locomotives operating between New Haven, CT, and Boston, MA.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.

[[Page S8906]]

  Mr. ROTH. We have a question for the distinguished Ranking Member of 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Is it the intent of 
this legislation that installation of the advanced civil enforcement 
systems be performed at the facility that has the expertise, 
capability, and prior experience to assemble and test cab signal 
equipment?
  Mr. BIDEN. These new speed monitoring systems are important to the 
operation of the Northeast Corridor and we want to ensure that the 
installation is done at a facility where the workers have the skills 
and experience to do the job right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is our intent; that is the facility that should 
do the job.


                      portland light rail funding

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a 
colloquy to clarify the funding provided for Portland Light Rail. The 
Committee Report on the Transportation Appropriations Bill has a single 
line item for the Portland Westside and South-North Light Rail 
projects. However, the Committee report description is ambiguous as to 
how the funding provided may be used. The description reads:

       Portland Westside and south-north LRT projects.--The 
     Committee recommends $26,700,000 for the Portland Westside 
     LRT project. . . .

  The report then goes on to describe both projects. It is the 
Committee's intention to provide this funding for both the Westside and 
south-north project?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes. The Committee intends the funding to be available 
for both projects.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman for this clarification. I would also 
ask whether the Committee intends to allow the $26.7 million amount 
provided for Portland light rail to be utilized either for completion 
of the Westside project or final design and right-of-way acquisition 
for the south-north project?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. The Committee intends this funding to be 
available for either of these purposes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member for 
their assistance in providing funding for both of these important 
transit projects.


                   chehalis I-5 Flood Control Project

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention a 
project that is of utmost importance to Southwest Washington state, the 
Chehalis I-5 Flood Control Project. You were gracious enough to include 
$250,000 for this project in the manager's amendment in full committee, 
and I would like to thank you for your attention to this matter. 
Unfortunately, this project, which will ultimately cost taxpayers $18 
million less than the initial option proposed by the Washington State 
Department of Transportation, will require $2.5 million in FY 1999 to 
wade through the myriad of permits that must be completed before this 
project can move forward. I would like to work with you in conference 
to ensure that this project has the Federal support to become a 
reality.
  Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. I 
look forward to working with you in conference to ensure that an 
innovative project such as the Chehalis I-5 Flood Control Project 
receives the federal commitment that it deserves.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3327

 (Purpose: To provide additional resources for the United States Coast 
                  Guard for drug interdiction efforts)

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr. 
     Coverdell, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bond, Mr. Grassley and Mr. 
     Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 3327.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 8 of the bill, in line 17 after the colon 
     insert: Provided further, That not less than $2,000,000 shall 
     be available to support restoration of enhanced counter-
     narcotics operations around the island of Hispaniola.
       On page 5 of the bill, in line 4, strike ``$165,215,000'' 
     and insert ``$158,468,000'';
       On page 9 of the bill, in line 2, strike $388,693,000'' and 
     insert ``$426,173,000'';
       On page 9 of the bill, in line 4, strike $215,473,000'' and 
     insert ``$234,553,000'';
       On page 9 of the bill, in line 7, strike ``$46,131,000'' 
     and insert ``$55,131,000'';
       On page 9 of the bill, in line 9 strike ``$35,389,000'' and 
     insert ``$44,789,000'';
       On page 77 of the bill, in line 15, strike ``$10,500,000'' 
     and insert ``$17,247,000''.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, yesterday 15 of my colleagues and I 
introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, legislation 
that would restore balance to our comprehensive antidrug strategy. My 
friend from Florida, Congressman Bill McCollum, is leading a similar 
effort in the House of Representatives.
  This legislation is a $2.6 billion effort--$2.6 billion over the next 
3 years. This is an outline. It is a blueprint to really restore 
balance to our antidrug effort. Unfortunately, over the years, the 
effort that we are putting in in regard to interdiction has gone down 
significantly as a percentage of our total budget. And we need to 
restore that balance.
  This legislation is a $2.6 billion, 3-year investment to reduce the 
amount of drugs coming into this country and to drive up the cost of 
drug trafficking. Taken together, this strategy will drive up the price 
of drugs and, most importantly, then drive down the incidence of the 
use of drugs in our country. This is an important investment in the 
future of America and the future of our children.
  Today, one day later, after having introduced this bill, the Senate 
will, I hope, take the first step towards realizing that investment. I 
am pleased to have just sent to the desk an amendment offered along 
with Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Bond, and 
Senator Grassley, an amendment that will provide much needed resources 
for the U.S. Coast Guard, resources that will increase their drug 
interdiction capability.
  Specifically, Mr. President, our amendment would accomplish two 
goals. One, it would increase the funds available for equipment devoted 
to drug interdiction by approximately $37.5 million. Second, the 
amendment would set aside resources needed to restore a much needed 
drug interdiction operation in the Caribbean.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, on the floor. I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with him to go over the particulars of the bipartisan 
amendment that I have offered.
  First, I would like, before I do that, to discuss the $37.5 million 
secured for additional resources.
  Specifically, Mr. President, with respect to sea-based resources, our 
amendment would enable the Coast Guard to reactivate one T-AGOS vessel 
and acquire two additional T-AGOS vessels. These vessels, originally 
Navy submarine hunters, have proved to be quite valuable for 
counterdrug operations because they have the room needed for command 
and control equipment, such as sensors and communications equipment.
  In addition, the amendment also would enable the Coast Guard to 
acquire a maritime interdiction patrol boat and satellite 
communications equipment for patrol boats.
  With respect to Coast Guard air operations, our amendment would allow 
for the reactivation of three maritime control aircraft. These are jet 
aircraft that would be used by the Coast Guard to track and pursue drug 
traffickers.
  Finally, our amendment would allow for the acquisition of forward-
looking infrared systems. This technology enables the Coast Guard to 
track heat signatures in the water.
  Why is this important? Well, drug traffickers, drug runners in the 
Caribbean, use what we call, and they call, ``go-fast'' boats, boats 
that are too fast for detection in tracking using conventional radar. 
The infrared systems can

[[Page S8907]]

detect ``go-fast'' boats and thus allow for more effective aerial 
surveillance.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I appreciate the effort of the Senator 
from Ohio, first, in offering this very important amendment and, 
second, in briefly tonight explaining to the Senate the kinds of 
resources that are to be acquired with the additional assistance he has 
been talking about. I also commend him for his diligence in seeking 
additional funds for the Coast Guard dealing with interdiction.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend from Alabama very much for his very 
kind words and for his leadership in assisting with this amendment.
  There is one additional component, Mr. President, of this amendment 
that I would like to discuss briefly this evening, and that is the set-
aside that will enable the Coast Guard to restore a very effective drug 
interdiction program in the Caribbean.
  My interest in drug interdiction activities in the Caribbean stems, 
in part, from my interest in the island nation of Haiti. The hard 
reality is that the Caribbean--from Haiti to the Bahamas--is fast 
becoming once again a major illegal drug transit route.
  On one of my recent trips, Mr. President, I saw that, in particular, 
Haiti is becoming an attractive rest-stop on the cocaine highway. It is 
strategically located about halfway between the source country, 
Colombia, and the destination country, the United States. Haiti law 
enforcement, though slowly getting better, is, at this point, utterly 
unequipped, unprepared to put a dent in this drug trade.
  What is more, the Coast Guard fleet consists of a handful of boats. 
They are making progress. They have certainly a long way to go. As the 
poorest country in the hemisphere, Haiti is extremely vulnerable to the 
kind of bribery and corruption that the drug trade needs in order to 
flourish. Not surprisingly, the level of drugs moving now through Haiti 
has dramatically increased.
  According to a U.S. Government interagency assessment on cocaine 
movement, in 1996 between 5 and 8 percent of the cocaine coming into 
the United States passed through Haiti. By the third quarter of 1997, 
the percentage jumped to 12 percent, and increased yet again to 19 
percent by the end of that year.
  Accordingly, we responded to this crisis with an interdiction 
strategy called Operation Frontier Lance--Operation Frontier Lance--
which utilized Coast Guard cutters, speedboats, and helicopters, all to 
detect and capture drug dealers on a 24-hour-per-day basis.
  Incidentally, this operation was modeled after another successful 
interdiction effort that took place off the coast of Puerto Rico called 
Operation Frontier Shield.
  Mr. President, last May I boarded the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Dallas 
and observed Operation Frontier Lance and observed the men and women 
who are on the front line--and were on the front line--carrying out our 
antidrug operation. And I came away thinking that this is the kind of 
effort, the kind of coordination of resources, that we need not just 
off the coast of Haiti and the Dominican Republic but also throughout 
the drug trafficking routes throughout the entire Caribbean.
  Mr. President, unfortunately--unfortunately--funding for Frontier 
Lance ran out last month. This once effective roadblock on the cocaine 
highway is no more. With our amendment, we can get that operation and/
or similar operations in the region back up and running.
  Specifically, our amendment secures operations funding that will 
allow Operation Frontier Lance or similar operations to resume. And 
with the additional resources I described earlier, the Coast Guard has 
an even greater ability to flex its drug interdiction muscle in the 
entire region.
  Mr. President, I express my thanks again to the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Shelby and 
Senator Lautenberg, for their very effective efforts to assist me and 
the distinguished list of cosponsors of this amendment. I also send my 
thanks to the staff of the subcommittee for their effort. Their effort 
was great and it was first rate. This would not have happened without 
them.
  As I said at the beginning of my statement, Mr. President, this 
amendment today is a first step. I expect that there will be many more 
steps in the future, steps that are needed if we are going to restore a 
truly balanced, truly effective drug control strategy.
  This amendment represents a bipartisan effort to make a targeted and 
very specific investment, an investment in stopping drugs before--
before--they reach America. It will take similar efforts over the 
course of the next 3 years to bring our drug strategy back into balance 
and, most important, back on the course of reducing drug use in our 
homes, our schools, and our communities.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio presents, I 
think, very effectively the case for continuing the efforts that we 
have had in the past--some quite successful--to intercept the drug 
trafficking, and to make sure that we do not let down our guard, and to 
maintain the facilities and personnel that we need to do it.
  The thing I am concerned about--and I commend the Senator from Ohio 
for bringing this to our attention; we will be looking at this over the 
next period of time--the offset for this amendment, if I am not 
mistaken, is proposed to come out of the administrative costs at DOT; 
am I correct in that?
  Mr. DeWINE. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That account has been severly tested. We will look 
closely to see if we can put together the package that the Senator from 
Ohio is recommending.
  I do send up a note of caution as we look at it. We have been warned 
that we could face a RIF, reduction in force, at DOT at the levels 
currently in the bill for administrative expenses.
  The chairman and I have been very careful to try to make sure that 
the dollars we expend are those that are most effective in providing 
transportation facilities, helping the Coast Guard, helping FAA, and we 
have been all along trying to reduce the administrative side, the 
travel side, all of those things. We are both staunch supporters of the 
Coast Guard with our coastal States and in deep appreciation for what 
the Coast Guard has done.
  The drug interdiction mission I talked about earlier today, and I am 
prepared on this side to accept the DeWine-Graham amendment, but I have 
to know that the chairman and I are going to take a fresh look at DOT's 
administrative costs in conference.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to state to my colleagues tonight 
that I believe myself, as I said earlier, that what Senator DeWine is 
offering to do makes a lot of sense. I will work with Senator DeWine 
and Senator Lautenberg in the conference when we get into the 
seriousness of what we can do with money. Interdiction here dealing 
with drugs should be and will be one of our No. 1 priorities.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me thank both of my colleagues, the 
ranking member and the chairman, for their great cooperation. I 
understand my colleague has expressed his concerns about the money 
situation. I look forward to working with both Members in regard to 
that.
  I appreciate your concern for the Coast Guard. I believe this is 
money very well spent. I think the Coast Guard knows what to do with 
its money. They know how to get the job done. I have been out literally 
in the field or on the sea with them to see what they can do. They do a 
good job getting it done.
  I understand the concerns with regard to the money.
  I don't know if there is any further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3327) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 3328 and 3329, En Bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have two amendments, one on behalf of 
Senator McCain, and one on behalf of Senator Specter. It is my 
understanding

[[Page S8908]]

they have been cleared. I send them to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 3328 and 3329.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3328

 (Purpose: To ensure that the policies and goals of the Amtrak Reform 
  and Accountability Act of 1997 will be met, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place insert:
       Sec.   . The change in definition for Amtrak capital 
     expenses shall not affect the legal characteristics of 
     capital and operating expenditures for purposes of Amtrak's 
     requirement to eliminate the use of appropriated funds for 
     operating expenses according to P.L. 105-134; No funds 
     appropriated for Amtrak in this Act shall be used to pay for 
     any wage, salary, or benefit increases that are a result of 
     any agreement entered into after October 1, 1997; Provided 
     further, That nothing in this Act shall affect Amtrak's legal 
     requirements to maintain its current system of accounting 
     under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Provided 
     further, That no later than 30 days after the end of each 
     quarter beginning with the first quarter in fiscal year 1999, 
     Amtrak shall submit to the Amtrak Reform Council and the 
     Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, a reporting of 
     specific expenditures for preventative maintenance, labor, 
     and other operating expenses from amounts made available 
     under this Act, and Amtrak's estimate of the amounts expected 
     to be expended for such expenses for the remainder of the 
     fiscal year.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3329

 (Purpose: To clarify Delaware River Port Authority to toll collection 
                               authority)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Section 3 of the Act of July 17, 1952 (66 Stat. 
     746, chapter 921), and section 3 of the act of July 17, 1952 
     (66 Stat. 571, chapter 922), are each amended in the 
     proviso--
       (1) by striking ``That'' and all that follows through ``the 
     collection of'' and inserting ``That the commission may 
     collect'' ; and
       (2) by striking ``,shall cease'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting a period.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We agree to the amendments.
  Mr. SHELBY. The amendments have been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3328 and 3329) were agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


          delaware river, pennsylvania its deployment project

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the inclusion in the bill of $4 million at my request for the 
deployment of an intelligent transportation system project across the 
Delaware River. I sought these funds at the request of the Delaware 
River Port Authority, which is implementing electronic toll and traffic 
management systems for the Ben Franklin, Walt Whitman, Commodore Barry, 
and Betsy Ross Bridges in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware region, 
which are operated and maintained by the Authority and serve thousands 
of drivers each day, including substantial commercial traffic.
  I believe that it is critical that we do all that is possible to 
alleviate traffic congestion on these important river crossings, for 
the sake of improving the quality of life of area residents and others 
who drive on the bridges and to reduce air pollution in Philadelphia 
and its suburbs.
  I thank the Chairman for including funds for deployment of an ITS 
system over the Delaware River, which will benefit both Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey.
  Mr. SHELBY. I am familiar with the Delaware River project discussed 
by my colleague from Pennsylvania and would note that the Delaware 
River Port Authority project is particularly well-suited for 
consideration by the Federal Highway Administration for funding under 
this legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 3330 through 3335 and 3323, as modified, en bloc

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Lautenberg, I send--and I will name them--a number of amendments to the 
desk that have been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3330 through 3335 and 3323, as modified.

  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these 
amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Among these amendments is an amendment on behalf of the 
Presiding Officer, Mr. Frist, an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Abraham, an amendment on behalf of Senator Levin, an amendment on 
behalf of Senators Lautenberg and Kerry of Massachusetts, an amendment 
on behalf of Senators Bond, Kohl and Johnson, an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Durbin, and an amendment on behalf of Senator Burns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. We support the amendments and urge their 
adoption.
  Mr. SHELBY. I urge the amendments be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3330 through 3335 and 3323) were agreed to, en 
bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3330

       On page 22 of the bill, in line 1, strike ``State of 
     Michigan,'' and insert: ``Oakland County, MI,''.
       On page 89 of the bill, in line 24, before the figure 
     ``2,700,000'' insert the following: $200,000 is provided for 
     the Southeast Michigan commuter rail viability study; 
     $2,000,000 is provided for the major investment analysis of 
     Honolulu transit alternatives;''.
       On page 92 of the bill, after line 25, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . Section 1212(m) of Public Law 105-178 is amended 
     (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``, Idaho and 
     West Virginia'' after ``Minnesota''; and (2) by inserting 
     ``or the States of Idaho or West Virginia'' after 
     ``Minnesota''.
       In amendment No. 3324, in line 10, strike ``determine the 
     feasibility of providing reliable access connecting King Cove 
     and Cold Bay, Alaska'' and insert the following: ``study 
     rural access issues in Alaska''.


                           amendment no. 3331

       On page 30, after line 11, before the period insert the 
     following: Provided further; That of the funds made available 
     under Sec. 5308, up to $10 million may be used for the 
     projects that include payments for the incremental costs of 
     biodiesel fuels: Provided further; That such incremental 
     costs shall be limited to the cost difference between the 
     cost of alternative fuels and their petroleum-based 
     alternatives.''


                           Amendment No. 3332

(Purpose: To prohibit smoking on scheduled domestic and foreign airline 
    flight segments taking off from or landing in the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SMOKING ON SCHEDULED FLIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 41706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 41706. Prohibitions against smoking on scheduled 
       flights

       ``(a) Smoking Prohibition in Intrastate and Interstate Air 
     Transportation.--An individual may not smoke in an aircraft 
     on a scheduled airline flight segment in interstate air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation.
       ``(b) Smoking Prohibition in Foreign Air Transportation.--
     The Secretary of Transportation shall require all air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers to prohibit, on an after 
     the 120th day following the date of the enactment of this 
     section, smoking in any aircraft on a scheduled airline 
     flight segment within the United States or between a place in 
     the United States and a place outside the United States.

[[Page S8909]]

       ``(c) Limitation on Applicability.--With respect to an 
     aircraft operated by a foreign air carrier, the smoking 
     prohibitions contained in subsections (a) and (b) shall apply 
     only to the passenger cabin and lavatory of the aircraft. If 
     a foreign government objects to the application of subsection 
     (b) on the basis that it is an extraterritorial application 
     of the laws of the United States, the Secretary is authorized 
     to waive the application of subsection (b) to a foreign air 
     carrier licensed by that foreign government. The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall identify and enforce an alternative 
     smoking prohibition in lieu of subsection (b) that has been 
     negotiated by the Secretary and the objecting foreign 
     government through a bilateral negotiation process.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the 60th day following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 3333

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

       In the case of a state that, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, has in force and effect State hazardous material 
     transportation laws that are inconsistent with federal 
     hazardous material transportation laws with respect to 
     intrastate transportation of agricultural production 
     materials for transportation from agricultural retailer to 
     farm, farm to farm, and from farm to agricultural retailer, 
     within a 100-mile air radius, such inconsistent laws may 
     remain in force and effect for fiscal year 1999 only.


                           amendment no. 3334

       On page 79 of the bill, in line 21 before the period, 
     insert: ``Provided further, That the Secretary, acting 
     through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, shall by January 1, 1999, take such actions 
     as may be necessary to ensure that each air carrier (as that 
     term is defined in section 40102 of title 49 U.S.C.) 
     prominently displays on every passenger ticket sold by any 
     means or mechanism a statement that reflects the national 
     average per passenger general fund subsidy based on the 
     fiscal year 1997 general fund appropriation from the Federal 
     Government to the Federal Aviation Administration: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Transportation, acting through 
     the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, 
     shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure the 
     placement of signs, on each Federal-aid highway (as that term 
     is defined in section 101 of title 23, U.S.C.) that states 
     that, during fiscal year 1997, the Federal Government 
     provided a general fund appropriation at a level verified by 
     the Department of Transportation, for the subsidy of State 
     and local highway construction and maintenance.


                           amendment no. 3335

   (Purpose: To require the National Transportation Safety Board to 
  reimburse the State of New York and local counties in New York for 
       certain costs associated with the crash of TWA Flight 800)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3  . REIMBURSEMENT FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES.

       The National Transportation Safety Board shall reimburse 
     the State of New York and local counties in New York during 
     the period beginning on June 12, 1997, and ending on 
     September 30, 1999, an aggregate amount equal to $6,059,000 
     for costs (including salaries and expenses) incurred in 
     connection with the crash of TWA Flight 800.


                    amendment no. 3323, as modified

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that 
  there is sufficient signage directing visitors to cemeteries of the 
           National Cemetery System, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3  . SIGNAGE ON HIGHWAYS WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL 
                   CEMETERY SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Federal-aid highway.--The term ``Federal aid highway'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 101 of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (2) National cemetery system.--The term ``National Cemetery 
     System'' means the National Cemetery System, which is managed 
     by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
       (b) Federal-aid Highways.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may encourage States to take such action as may be necessary 
     to ensure that, for each cemetery of the National Cemetery 
     System that is located in the proximity of any Federal-aid 
     highway, there is sufficient and appropriate signage along 
     that highway to direct visitors to that cemetery.
       (c) State Highways.--Nothing in subsection (b) is intended 
     to affect the provision of signage by a State along a State 
     highway to direct visitors to a cemetery of the National 
     Cemetery System.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be ordered on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on passage at 
9:15 a.m. on Friday, and that paragraph 4 of rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
votes tonight. The next vote is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. Friday morning.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes action on S. 2307, the fiscal year 1999 transportation 
appropriations bill, that the bill not be engrossed and be held at the 
desk.
  I further ask that when the Senate receives the House of 
Representatives companion measure, the Senate immediately proceed to 
its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and 
the text of S. 2307, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the 
House bill, as amended, be read for a third time and passed, the motion 
to reconsider the vote be laid upon the table, that the Senate insist 
on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and that the 
foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
passes the House companion measure, as amended, the passage of S. 2307 
be vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________