[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11862-S11867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2084) have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 30, 1999.)
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has the 
opportunity to consider the conference agreement for the Fiscal Year 
2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, and expect that we will 
reinforce the Senate's strong support for this legislation, which was 
passed just 18 days ago by a vote of 95 to 0.
  The Transportation Appropriations bill provides more than $50 billion 
for transportation infrastructure funding, and for safe travel and 
transportation in the air and on our nation's highways, railroads, 
coasts and rivers. I am pleased that we have reached an accommodation 
between the House and the Senate Conferees on the Transportation 
appropriations bill. The House didn't win on every issue, the Senate 
didn't win on every issue, the Administration didn't get everything 
that they wanted--there was a fair amount of give and take on the part 
of all interested parties and I am confident that the result is a 
balanced package that is responsive to the priorities of the Congress 
and of the administration.
  The 302(b) allocation was tight and constrained our ability to do 
some things that I would have liked to do-- but we have stayed within 
the allocation agreed to by the House and the Senate and we have a bill 
that the Administration will sign. I believe this bill represents a 
balanced approach and a model for how appropriations bills should be 
constructed. It stays within the allocation, it stays pretty close to 
the budget request with the exception of denying new user fee taxes and 
making some firewall shifts that the authorizing committee objected to, 
it adheres to the commitment made in TEA-21 on dedicated funding for 
Highways and Transit, it provides adequate--but constrained--levels for 
FAA, it maintains a credible Coast Guard capital base and operational 
tempo, and it continues to focus on making further strides in 
increasing the safety of all our transportation systems.
  At the same time, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Sabo, the senior 
Senator from New Jersey and I have gone to great lengths to craft a 
bill that accommodates the requests of members and funds their 
priorities. Scarcely a day passes where one member or another does not 
call, write, or collar me on the floor to advocate for a project, a 
program, or a particular transportation priority for their state. I 
received over 1,500 separate Senate requests in letter form over the 
last six months. This bill attempts to respond to as many of those 
requests as possible.
  As many of you know, the current fiscal constraints were especially 
felt in the transit account, where demand for mass transit systems is 
growing in every state, but funding is fixed by the TEA-21 firewall. I 
won't belabor that point other than to say we did the best we could 
under very difficult circumstances.

[[Page S11863]]

  It has been a constant challenge this year to ensure adequate funding 
for FAA operations, facilities, equipment and research, and for the 
Airport Improvement Program; for the Coast Guard operations and capital 
accounts; and for operating funds for the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration. This clearly illustrates the 
pitfalls of firewalls and the disadvantages of trying to manage annual 
outlays in multi-year authorization legislation. Our experience this 
year with this bill is one of many reasons the Congress should reject a 
proposal to establish more budgetary firewalls around trust fund 
accounts in the future.

  I want to mention one other issue that has been the topic of many 
conversations over the past couple of weeks. That is, the Senate 
provision concerning the release of personal information by state 
departments of motor vehicles. My concern is that private information 
is too available. The proliferation of information over the Internet 
makes it easy and cheap for almost anyone to access very personal 
information.
  I think members would be shocked by what virtually anyone--including 
wierdos or stalkers--can find out about you, your wife, or your 
children with only a rudimentary knowledge of how to search the 
Internet.
  I believe that there should be a presumption that personal 
information will be kept confidential, unless there is compelling state 
need to disclose that information. Most states, however, readily make 
this information available, and because states sell this information, a 
lot of information about you effectively comes from public records.
  Section 350 of the conference protects personal information from 
broad distribution by requiring express consent prior to the release of 
information in two situations. First, individuals must give their 
consent before a state is able to release photographs, social security 
numbers, and medical or disability information. Of course, this 
excludes law enforcement and others acting on behalf of the government. 
Second, individuals must give their consent before the state can sell 
or release other personal information when that information is 
disseminated for the purpose of direct marketing or solicitations. I 
want to be clear: this applies only when the state sells your name, 
address, and other such information to people who are using that 
information for marketing purposes.
  We recognize that states may need time to comply with this provision. 
And we've proposed to delay the effective date 9 months. In addition, 
there was concern expressed about this provision being tied to 
transportation funds under this bill, and the conference agreement 
eliminates the sanction language and expressly states that no states' 
fund may be withheld because of non-compliance with this provision. In 
addition, the Congressional Budget Office has performed a cost estimate 
analysis of this provision, and found that the total implementation 
cost for States is well below $50 million nationally.
  I believe that the general public would be as shocked as my 
colleagues in the Senate if they learned that states were running a 
business with the personal information from motor vehicle records.
  There are a few people I would particularly like to thank before we 
vote. My Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, has been a valued partner 
in this process, and I'm sorry that we only have one more year to do 
this together. Senators Stevens and Byrd have provided guidance 
throughout the year, and made a successful bill possible by ensuring an 
adequate allocation for transportation programs. My House counterpart, 
Congressman Frank Wolf and his staff: John Blazey, Rich Efford, 
Stephanie Gupta and Linda Muir, have been professional, accommodating, 
and collegial. This last week has been a blueprint for how conference 
negotiations should be conducted. Senator Lott and his staff have been 
gracious and extremely helpful in moving this legislation forward. And 
on the Appropriations Committee staff, I want to recognize Steve 
Cortese and Jay Kimmitt for their invaluable assistance and advice.
  I look forward to passing this bill and sending it to the President. 
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from OMB relating to this 
conference report be printed in the Congressional Record at the end of 
my remarks and after the table regarding federal highway aid. From the 
OMB letter, it is my expectation that the President will sign the bill 
in its current form.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to include the following 
table for the Record which shows the estimated fiscal year 2000 
distribution of Federal highway fund obligational authority. This table 
illustrates the state-by-state distribution of non-discretionary 
highway funds under the conference agreement. It is important to note 
that none of the discretionary programs, including public lands 
highways, Indian reservation roads, park roads and parkways, or 
discretionary bridge are included in this distribution, as these funds 
are granted on an individual application basis. In addition, these 
figures do not include the carryover balances from prior years, the 
final computation of administrative takedown, or the final minimum 
guarantee adjustments. However, these figures are very close to the 
actual state distribution that will be made by the Federal Highway 
Administration based on the agreement outlined in the conference 
report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--ESTIMATED FY 2000 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY (INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION OF
                  RABA UNDER CONFERENCE PROPOSAL AND DISTRIBUTION OF $98.5 MILLION IN ADMINISTRATIVE TAKEDOWN FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Formula obligation    Exempt minimum                          RABA conference
                       States                             limitation           guarantee           Subtotal            proposal              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................        $471,711,405         $11,367,974        $483,079,379         $29,016,764        $512,096,143
Alaska..............................................         268,677,889          21,022,139         289,700,028          16,970,939         306,670,967
Arizona.............................................         375,629,521          14,116,557         389,746,078          23,285,789         413,031,867
Arkansas............................................         380,148,116           8,870,348         317,018,464          19,016,257         336,034,721
California..........................................       2,135,937,494          41,571,122       2,177,508,616         131,247,260       2,308,755,876
Colorado............................................         271,325,228           5,218,128         276,543,356          16,673,553         293,216,909
Connecticut.........................................         347,917,991          15,458,380         363,376,371          21,631,767         385,008,138
Delaware............................................         102,256,467           2,516,824         104,773,291           6,301,112         111,074,403
Dist. of Col........................................          92,495,095              99,255          92,594,350           5,634,683          98,229,033
Florida.............................................       1,065,315,963          49,989,815       1,115,305,778          66,321,154       1,181,626,932
Georgia.............................................         828,256,118          32,991,973         861,248,091          51,375,336         912,623,427
Hawaii..............................................         119,530,218           3,358,725         122,888,943           7,374,632         130,263,575
Idaho...............................................         178,383,500           6,424,871         184,808,371          11,043,615         195,851,986
Illinois............................................         785,605,674          12,083,474         797,689,148          48,176,561         845,865,709
Indiana.............................................         579,109,909          21,891,566         601,001,475          35,894,907         636,896,382
Iowa................................................         279,429,622           3,744,432         283,174,054          17,121,381         300,295,435
Kansas..............................................         273,194,168           2,007,662         275,201,830          16,691,012         291,892,842
Kentucky............................................         401,970,692          10,003,210         411,973,902          24,735,491         436,709,393
Louisiana...........................................         391,418,740          11,102,273         402,521,013          24,151,481         426,672,494
Maine...............................................         123,317,168           2,925,145         126,242,313           7,592,996         133,835,309
Maryland............................................         367,510,492           7,464,568         374,975,060          22,588,127         397,563,187
Massachusetts.......................................         436,472,391           7,583,988         444,056,379          26,790,453         470,846,832
Michigan............................................         744,199,500          23,383,006         767,582,506          45,987,032         813,569,538
Minnesota...........................................         347,863,427           6,266,043         354,129,470          21,358,519         375,487,413
Mississippi.........................................         282,518,602           5,567,485         288,086,087          17,358,519         305,444,606
Missouri............................................         569,625,340          12,728,657         582,353,997          35,047,859         617,401,856
Montana.............................................         227,145,762          10,546,766         237,692,528          14,140,666         251,833,194
Nebraska............................................         180,760,739           1,864,558         182,625,297          11,062,788         193,688,085
Nevada..............................................         166,699,784           5,948,338         172,648,122          10,323,779         182,971,901
New Hampshire.......................................         120,134,397           3,111,027         123,245,424           7,402,980         130,648,404

[[Page S11864]]

 
New Jersey..........................................         598,730,322          11,286,798         610,017,120          36,776,405         646,793,525
New Mexico..........................................         227,824,334           7,169,730         234,994,064          14,079,572         249,073,636
New York............................................       1,194,894,120          28,056,993       1,222,951,113          73,547,672       1,296,498,785
North Carolina......................................         651,657,222          22,361,073         674,018,295          40,308,266         714,326,561
North Dakota........................................         151,554,823           3,564,655         155,119,478           9,333,524         164,453,002
Ohio................................................         859,342,925          22,507,807         881,850,732          52,959,163         934,809,895
Oklahoma............................................         359,066,919           7,361,168         366,428,087          22,076,510         388,504,597
Oregon..............................................         289,181,685           3,630,769         292,812,454          17,707,362         310,519,816
Pennsylvania........................................       1,174,935,166          20,690,226       1,195,625,392          72,033,420       1,267,658,812
Rhode Island........................................          37,789,794           4,921,466         142,711,260           8,533,831         151,245,091
South Carolina......................................         368,700,588          13,940,670         382,641,258          22,853,717         405,494,975
South Dakota........................................         169,007,946           4,237,330         173,245,276          10,411,545         183,656,821
Tennessee...........................................         533,893,724          12,450,474         546,344,198          32,831,373         579,175,871
Texas...............................................       1,736,180,606          64,627,615       1,800,808,221         107,594,447       1,908,402,668
Utah................................................         181,553,286           3,552,164         185,105,450          11,156,019         196,261,469
Vermont.............................................         105,918,243           2,146,701         108,064,944           6,512,509         114,577,453
Virginia............................................         592,611,780          16,373,740         608,985,520          36,550,515         645,536,035
Washington..........................................         423,671,200           6,405,044         430,076,244          25,978,168         456,054,412
West Virginia.......................................         264,443,795           2,590,550         267,034,345          16,126,281         283,160,262
Wisconsin...........................................         458,224,706          16,164,680         474,389,386          28,368,743         502,758,129
Wyoming.............................................         161,572,167           3,732,038         165,304,205           9,947,966         175,252,171
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................      23,483,316,763         639,000,000      24,122,316,763       1,448,003,841      25,570,320,604
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  ____
                                  
      Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
                                                           Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1999.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related 
         Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to provide 
     the Administration's views on the Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2000, as passed by the House 
     and by the Senate. As the conferees develop a final version 
     of the bill, we ask you to consider the Administration's 
     views.
       The Administration appreciates the House and Senate's 
     efforts to accommodate many of the Administration's 
     priorities within their 302(b) allocations and the difficult 
     choices made necessary by those allocations. However, the 
     allocations of discretionary resources available under the 
     Congressional Budget Resolution are simply inadequate to make 
     the necessary investments that our citizens need and expect.
       The President's FY 2000 Budget proposes levels of 
     discretionary spending that meet such needs while conforming 
     to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings 
     proposals in mandatory and other programs available to help 
     finance this spending. Congress has approved and the 
     President has signed into law nearly $29 billion of such 
     offsets in appropriations legislation since 1995. The 
     Administration urges the Congress to consider other, similar 
     proposals as the FY 2000 appropriations process moves 
     forward. With respect to this bill in particular, the 
     Administration urges the Congress to consider the President's 
     proposals for user fees.
       Both the House and Senate versions of the bill raise 
     serious funding concerns. First, both versions of the bill 
     underfund the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) 
     operations and modernization programs, reduce highway and 
     motor carrier safety, and underfund other important programs. 
     The conferees could partially accommodate the funding 
     increases recommended below for these programs by adhering 
     more closely to the President's requests for the Airport 
     Improvement Program, High Speed Rail, Coast Guard Alteration 
     of Bridges, Coast Guard capital improvements, and other 
     programs.
       In addition, both the House and Senate have reduced 
     requested funding for important safety, mobility, and 
     environmental requirements. The Administration proposes to 
     meet these requirements through the reallocation of a portion 
     of the increased spending resulting from higher-than-
     anticipated highway excise tax revenues. Under this proposal, 
     every State would still receive at least as much funding as 
     was assumed when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century was enacted. The conferees are encouraged to consider 
     the Administration's proposal as a means to fund these 
     important priorities.
       The Administration's specific concerns with both the House 
     and Senate versions of the bill are discussed below.


                   aviation safety and modernization

       The funding provided by the House and the Senate is not 
     sufficient to meet the rising demand for air traffic 
     services.
  The Administration strongly urges the conferees to fully fund the 
President's request for FAA Operations. The request consists of $5,958 
million to maintain current operations and $81 million to meet 
increased air traffic and safety demands. Neither bill provides 
sufficient resources to maintain current service levels, let alone meet 
increased demands.
       The Administration urges the conferees to provide at least 
     the House level for the FAA's Facilities and Equipment 
     account. The Senate reduction, including the rescission, 
     would seriously compromise the FAA's ability to modernize the 
     air traffic control system. At the Senate level, safety and 
     security projects would be delayed or canceled, and 
     critically-needed capacity enhancing projects would be 
     postponed, increasing future air travel delays. In addition, 
     the conferees are urged to provide the requested $17 million 
     in critically-needed funds for implementation of a Global 
     Positioning System (GPS) modernization plan to help enable 
     transition to a more efficient, GPS-based air navigation 
     system. This is a top priority, and the conferees are asked 
     to fund this in addition to the FAA's other capital needs.
       The Administration supports the decision, in both Houses, 
     to eliminate the General Fund subsidy for FAA Operations and 
     urges the conferees to enact the Administration's proposal to 
     finance the agency. Such a system would improve the FAA's 
     efficiency and effectiveness by creating new incentives for 
     it to operate in a business-like manner.


                             cafe standards

       The Administration strongly opposes, and urges the 
     conferees to drop, the House bill's prohibition of work on 
     the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. These 
     standards have resulted in a doubling of the fuel economy of 
     the car fleet, saving the Nation billions of gallons of oil 
     and the consumer billions of dollars. Because prohibitions 
     such as this have been enacted in recent years, the 
     Department of Transportation has been unable to analyze this 
     important issue fully. These prohibitions have limited the 
     availability of important information that directly 
     influences the Nation's environment.


                          livability programs

       The Administration is very disappointed that both versions 
     of the bill fund transit formula grants at $212 million below 
     the President's request and the Transportation and Community 
     and Preservation Pilot Program at approximately $24 million 
     below the request. Further, the Administration is 
     disappointed that the House bill does not direct additional 
     funding to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
     Improvement program. These programs are important components 
     of the Administration's efforts to provide communities with 
     the tools and resources needed to combat congestion, air 
     pollution and sprawl. The Administration also objects to the 
     addition of unrequested and unreviewed projects within the 
     Transportation and Community and Privatization Pilot Program 
     formula grants. The conferees are strongly urged to fully 
     fund the President's request for these programs.


                             highway safety

       The Administration urges the conferees to provide funding 
     consistent with the recently enacted reauthorization for the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's operations 
     and research activities. This would provide an increase of 
     $20 million above the House and Senate funding levels. This 
     funding would allow expanded Buckle Up America and Partners 
     in Progress efforts to meet alcohol and belt usage goals. It 
     would also provide enhanced crash data collection, increased 
     defects investigations, and crucial research activities on 
     advanced air bags, crashworthiness, and enhanced testing to 
     make better car safety information more readily available to 
     the public.


                          motor carrier safety

       The Administration appreciates the Senate bill's funding of 
     $155 million, the amended request, for the National Motor 
     Carrier Safety Grant Program. This will allow the Office of 
     Motor Carrier and Highway Safety to undertake improvements in 
     the area of motor carrier enforcement, research, and data 
     collection activities that are designed to increase safety on 
     our Nation's roads and highways. The Administration strongly 
     urges the conferees to continue to provide this funding as 
     well as the additional $5.8 million requested for motor 
     carrier operations.

[[Page S11865]]

                     job access and reverse commute

       The Administration is disappointed that both the House and 
     Senate would provide only $75 million--half of the amount 
     authorized and requested--for the Job Access and Reverse 
     Commute program. This program is a critical component of the 
     Administration's welfare-to-work effort and local demands far 
     exceed available resources. Demand is expected to increase 
     further as more communities around the country work together 
     to address the transportation challenges faced by families 
     moving from welfare to work and by other low income workers. 
     The Administration urges the conferees to provide full 
     funding at $150 million.


                        office of the secretary

       The Administration urges the conferees to provide the 
     President's request of $63 million for the Office of the 
     Secretary in a consolidated account and delete the limitation 
     on political appointees in both bills. This is necessary to 
     provide the Secretary with the resources and flexibility to 
     manage the Department effectively. In addition, we request 
     restoration of the seven-percent reduction to the Office of 
     Civil Rights contained in the Senate version of the bill. 
     This reduction would hamper the Department's ability to 
     enforce laws prohibiting discrimination in Federally operated 
     and assisted transportation programs.


                          language provisions

       The conferees are requested to delete provisions in both 
     bills that would restrict the Coast Guard's and Federal 
     Aviation Administration's user fee authority. User fees can 
     help the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration by 
     providing resources to meet their operating and capital needs 
     without significantly reducing other vital transportation 
     programs.
       The conferees are requested to delete provisions in both 
     versions of the bill that would impose DOT-wide reductions in 
     obligations to the Transportation Administrative Service 
     Center. These reductions, which are particularly severe in 
     the Senate, would impose significant constraints on critical 
     administrative programs.
       The conferees are requested to delete Section 316 of the 
     Senate bill, which would extend the traditional anti-lobbying 
     provision in DOT appropriations acts to State legislatures. 
     This broad, ambiguous provision would chill the informational 
     activities of the Department and limit the ability of the 
     Department to carry out its safety mandate. The existing 
     requirements of Section 7104 of TEA-21 adequately address 
     this issue.
       There are several provisions in both bills that purport to 
     require congressional approval before Executive Branch 
     execution of aspects of the bill. The Administration will 
     interpret such provisions to require notification only, since 
     any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court 
     ruling in INS versus Chadha.


                         report language issue

       The Administration is concerned with the House report 
     language that would not fund the controller-in-charge 
     differential, which was part of the carefully crafted air 
     traffic controller agreement research last year.
       We look forward to working with the Committee to address 
     our mutual concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                           Jacob J. Lew, Director.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 2084, the Transportation appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2000.
  I am pleased that during this, the first day of the first full week 
of the new fiscal year, we are sending a free-standing Transportation 
bill to the President for his signature. Earlier this year I would not 
have predicted that we would succeed in getting a free-standing 
Transportation bill. Credit for his successful accomplishment belongs 
primarily to our subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby. This bill has 
had a number of difficulties along the way--difficulties that sometimes 
divided Senator Shelby and myself. But I think it is fair to say that 
throughout the year, both Senator Shelby and I showed a willingness to 
listen, as well as a willingness to compromise. As such, many of the 
problems that burdened this bill earlier this year have been worked out 
over time.
  Senator Shelby consulted the Minority throughout this year's process. 
We may not have agreed on every figure and every policy contained in 
this bill, but there were never any surprises. His door was always open 
to me and to the other minority members of the subcommittee. I 
especially want to thank Senator Shelby for his attention to the unique 
transportation needs of my home state of New Jersey, the most congested 
state in the nation. Our congestion problem makes New Jersey the most 
transit-dependent state in the nation and Senator Shelby recognized 
this fact by working with me to provide substantial investments in 
projects like the Hudson-Bergen waterfront, the Newark-Elizabeth rail 
link, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, the West Trenton line, and a 
feasibility study of a new transit tunnel under the Hudson River.
  The Transportation Subcommittee faced a very tight allocation. These 
funding difficulties were made more challenging by the spending 
increases mandated for the Federal Highway Administration and the 
Federal Transit Administration under TEA-21. These mandated increases 
put extraordinary pressure on the non-protected programs in the Coast 
Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
  The funding level provided for Amtrak represents the largest single 
cut in this bill below the fiscal year 1999 level. Amtrak is funded at 
a level fully 6 percent below last year's level. It is to Amtrak's 
credit, however, that Amtrak's financial turn-around has generated the 
kind of revenue that will allow the corporation to absorb this cut 
without any notable service reductions.
  Funding for the operations budget within the Federal Aviation 
Administration is another area of concern. While this bill funds FAA 
Operations at a level fully 6 percent above last year's level, the 
amount provided remains 2.3 percent below the level requested by the  
Administration. Also, funding for highway safety within the operations 
and research account in the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration is 19 percent below the President's request. In this 
instance, the Administration's budget request depended upon the 
enactment of a new authorization bill raising the authorization 
ceilings for NHTSA. Unfortunately, by the time that authorization bill 
was enacted, our subcommittee ceiling had already been established and 
we did not have the funding to accommodate these funding increases for 
NHTSA. Mr. President, if I could identify one serious flaw with the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), it would be 
the fact that several trust funded programs for highway construction 
are granted guaranteed increases over the next several years, while the 
safety programs from the trust fund are not granted similarly 
privileged budgetary treatment. We need to do better for these critical 
safety programs, both in the FAA and in NHTSA. I have not given up on 
the chance to do better for these programs. I intend to work with the 
Administration to see if additional funds can be included in an omnibus 
appropriations bill or, perhaps, in a Supplemental Appropriations bill.

  In the area of truck safety, I am disappointed that this bill does 
not include the $50 million that I added during full committee markup 
for grants within the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. The tight funding 
allocation burdening the subcommittee just made it impossible to 
accommodate this item in Conference. However, I have to say that while 
money is important to our efforts to maintain truck and bus safety, 
guts and determination on the part of the Administration is of even 
greater importance. The Office of Motor Carrier Safety needs to be 
willing to shut down the most egregious safety violators to protect bus 
passengers and the motoring public.
  There have been several hearings regarding the deficiencies of the 
Office of Motor Carriers this year. Within the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, we spent considerable time discussing the 
recent series of fatal bus crashes within New Jersey. The Commerce 
Committee also held hearings on the overall deficiencies with the OMC. 
Those hearings painted a very dismal picture of a largely impotent 
agency that is more interested in outreach than in ensuring safe truck 
and bus operations. More recently, we have seen indications of a new, 
more serious attitude at the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. This 
appropriations bill mandates that that office can no longer be operated 
within the Federal Highway Administration. Perhaps this will make a 
difference. In my view, the jury is still out on whether we have turned 
the corner on improving truck and bus safety. Over the course of the 
next year, we will need to review carefully whether the changes 
recently announced by the Office of Motor Carriers represent a true 
change in attitude or just a change in rhetoric.
  In summary, Mr. President, I encourage all Members to vote in favor 
of this

[[Page S11866]]

conference report. The conference agreement is a balanced and 
bipartisan effort to meet the needs of our nation's transportation 
enterprise within a difficult funding envelope. I believe it deserves 
the support of all Members.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to vote on the 
adoption of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2084.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Daschle), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Reed), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Conrad
     Enzi
     Hagel

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Daschle
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Mack
     McCain
     Reed
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend Senators Shelby and Lautenberg 
for this bill. It is really a monstrous bill, and they have come back 
with a very good compromise, a bill with which we can all live.
  The staff on this bill deserves a great deal of credit, too. To my 
right is Wally Burnett, staff director of the Transportation 
Subcommittee for the Senate. He handles the highway and aviation 
accounts. Wally tops at 205 pounds now, but we call him Little Wally in 
Fairbanks. I thank him and Joyce Rose, who handles the railroad and 
transit accounts. She spent a lot of time away from her young kids. 
Paul Doerrer handled the Coast Guard and NTSB accounts. He did a great 
job on his first bill. I also thank Peter Rogoff and Carole Geagley of 
the minority. They have worked very hard on this bill. As I said, it is 
an extremely good bill.
  I want to mention two items related to this bill. We do have a very 
difficult problem in Alaska on aviation safety. We are, after all, the 
largest State of the Union, one-fifth of the size of the United States. 
We use aircraft as other people use taxis or buses or trains. Over 80 
percent of our inter-city traffic is by air. Seventy percent of our 
cities can be reached only by air. As a consequence, safety is one of 
our major concerns.
  This summer, Director Hall of the National Transportation Safety 
Board came to Alaska. He met there with representatives of the Centers 
for Disease Control and their National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, NIOSH. There are resources provided in this bill to 
implement the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations 
and NIOSH's interagency initiative for aviation safety in my home State 
of Alaska. Senator Specter's bill, the Labor-HHS bill, provides the 
resources for NIOSH. They will have to be in the bill in order to put 
this plan into action.
  The NIOSH initiative for the air taxi industry in Alaska is modeled 
after the highly successful 1993 helicopter logging study which 
produced recommendations for changes that implemented safety plans 
without Federal regulation. NIOSH recommended crew rest and crew duty 
schedules along with changes in helicopter logging equipment, and that 
has all but eliminated helicopter logging fatalities since those 
recommendations were implemented.
  It is my hope that the NIOSH study on aviation can produce the same 
results--industry-led improvements to commuter aviation safety 
operations in Alaska--again, without the need for new Government-
imposed mandates. The industry itself I believe will implement the 
NIOSH recommendations.
  As the Senate knows, my family has known fatalities from airplane 
crashes. And I have many friends who have been involved in such 
crashes. As one who was lucky enough to walk away, it is my hope that 
these studies will lead to greater safety considerations for all who 
fly in Alaska. I am grateful to the chairman and the ranking member, 
Chairman Shelby and Senator Lautenberg, for including in this bill 
these great, new safety initiatives.

  I am happy to report on another matter. This bill ensures completion 
of the pedestrian footbridge that will span the Chena River in 
Fairbanks. Fairbanks is Alaska's second largest city.
  The Alaska River Walk Centennial Bridge is the brainchild of Dr. 
William Ransom Wood. He is really the sage of Alaska. He is the 
executive director of Festival Fairbanks. This bridge is a small piece 
of an overall plan that Dr. Wood and the rest of the festival have 
developed to beautify Fairbanks and make it pedestrian friendly.
  At 95, Dr. Wood has been one of Alaska's major players. He served as 
the president of the University of Alaska, mayor of Fairbanks, and on 
so many community councils and State task forces that I cannot here 
name them all. In honor of Dr. Wood's contribution to Fairbanks, the 
State of Alaska, and our Nation as a naval commander in World War II, 
Senator Murkowski and I join together in introducing a Senate 
resolution which will urge Secretary Slater to designate this 
footbridge the William R. Wood Centennial Bridge.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to 
respond to some of the things the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee just said, particularly his acknowledgment of 
the hard work done by the staff on both sides, the majority staff and 
the minority staff, and to say that I watch Senator Stevens in action; 
I see how difficult it is to get some of these allocations in the shape 
we would like.
  We are pleased that the Transportation bill was, if I may use the 
word, hammered out because there are still a lot of needs with which we 
have to be concerned. One is the FAA, of course, and our safety 
programs. I was pleased to hear the Senator mention that.
  The other is the U.S. Coast Guard, in which Senator Stevens has such 
an active interest. I share that interest. The State of New Jersey has 
a great deal of dependence--as well as the entire country--on the 
activities of the Coast Guard. And the fact is that their funding is 
presently on the short side. But decisions are made when resources are 
too spare, and, inevitably, some hard decisions have to be made.
  I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for being able 
to ensure that the Transportation bill was moved along. I know how hard 
he is working with some of the other bills that are still pending.

[[Page S11867]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________