[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5088-S5099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 7475) making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Under the previous order, the
language of S. 2720 is before the Senate as amendment No. 3426.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is
the House bill, is that right, or the Senate bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The House bill, with the Senate language as an
amendment.
Mr. SHELBY. We have some procedural obstacles to clear, is my
understanding here. In the meantime, what I will do is go ahead and
make my opening statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, chairman Stevens and the leader asked us
to move quickly on this year's Transportation appropriations bill, and
I'm happy to say that with the assistance of the senior Senator from
New Jersey, we have reported a bill for the Senate's consideration. I
am speaking of the Senate bill now. Considering that the Senate
approved the Transportation appropriations bill in September last year,
I suppose that presenting this bill during the second full week in June
would qualify as moving more quickly this year.
I commend Senator Stevens and Majority Leader Lott for pushing this
agenda.
Both Senator Lautenberg and I strongly support this package, though
[[Page S5089]]
neither one of us agrees with every decision and funding level that is
included in the bill and report. However, this bill contains the
essential elements of a Transportation appropriations bill that meets
the challenge of adequately funding the Transportation programs within
the budget constraints that we have set for Federal spending in fiscal
year 2001.
I will spend a few minutes on the bill funding summary.
The bill provides a total of $54.7 billion, which is $4.7 billion
more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Because the firewalled
highway and transit programs account for most of this growth--not to
mention the increases in aviation capital investment anticipated in
FAIR-21 that this body approved just a few months ago--we have been
left with no choice but to constrain the growth in the FAA and Coast
Guard operations accounts and Coast Guard capital account.
Nevertheless, I am confident that, with responsible management, the
funding levels for FAA operations and for the Coast Guard are adequate
to meet the challenges of safely and effectively managing the nation's
airways and the execution of the Coast Guard missions.
I note that the administration requested 15 percent growth in the
Coast Guard operations account and 12 percent in the FAA operating
expenses account. The bill before you today directly provides 9 percent
growth in both those operating accounts with an additional 4 percent
potential growth available to the FAA operations account if necessary
to maintain aviation safety at the discretion of the Secretary of
Transportation and the FAA Administrator.
That is a lot of money--and a great deal of growth under the
budgetary constraints we are operating under. At the same time, the
funding levels in our bill require the Secretary to balance the
critical needs of both the Coast Guard and the FAA as he (or she)
manages the Department. My concern is not that we haven't provided
enough resources. My concern is that they won't be administered with an
eye towards saving the taxpayers money or toward seeking efficiencies
in program execution.
We have rejected the administration's proposal to divert highway
funds in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--or RABA--to other programs.
This unrealistic proposal raised expectations, but is nothing more than
a case of the administration wanting to say they support the highway
firewalls while proposing to spend the money on nonhighway activities.
You can't have it both ways.
We have also rejected the administration's proposal to levy new user
fees. Three years ago during my first year as chairman of the
Transportation subcommittee, we said no to the administration's new
user-fee taxes, 2 years ago, we said no again to the new and improved
user-fee taxes from the administration, and last year, we again said no
thanks to the newly reconstituted user-fee tax proposal from the
administration. Guess what? This is my fourth year as chair of the
Transportation appropriation subcommittee, and the President's budget
again includes $1.3 billion in new user-fees taxes--I am starting to
recognize a pattern. Is anyone in the administration listening to what
Congress is saying about new user-fee taxes?
Along these lines, I would note that the shortfalls that the
administration will complain about in the FAA operations account in
this bill are far short of the user-fee proposals that they have
proposed for the FAA, not to mention the Coast Guard. If the
administration would refrain from submitting budgets with new user-fee
taxes as a budget gimmick that they know will never be enacted to hide
other non-transportation spending, it would make all our jobs a lot
easier to meet realistic targets and expectations for these operations
accounts.
The bill before you meets the TEA-21 firewall levels for highway and
transit investment. In highways, the RABA funding has all been
distributed to the states in accordance with each state's share of the
program consistent with last year's Senate appropriations bill. In
short, every states gets more highway funds through the approach taken
in the bill before you. I urge every Senator to refer to the table I
will insert in the Record to see the total highway funds that will be
available for highway construction in his or her state through the
approach we propose.
The transit new starts and bus projects are not earmarked, which is
the way the Senate has handled these programs the last 2 years. This is
an approach that has worked well for the Defense appropriations process
with respect to the National Guard equipment account, and I believe
that it is a good model for balancing congressional and administration
priorities in the allocation of discretionary transit projects.
The bill provides $4.4 billion for the activities of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and, as I mentioned earlier, there is an 9 percent increase for
the operating expenses of the Coast Guard. I think we can all agree
that it is essential to provide the Coast Guard with the resources they
need to continue their tradition of maritime search and rescues,
protecting the environment and our coastlines, and enforcing our laws
on the seas.
There are a few general provisions that I would draw to your
attention. One requires the administration to submit with their budget
request an accounting of what programs are to be cut if the Congress
does not choose to enact the next complement of new user-fee tax-budget
gimmicks.
Although there are other issues that will be discussed during
consideration of this bill, I will note one now. That issue is the
national ``.08'' blood alcohol content provision. Senator Lautenberg,
who is managing his last Transportation appropriations bill this year,
makes a compelling case for why the states should adopt ``.08''. This
language was included in the bill at his request and will vote to
support its inclusion the bill the Senate passes. I urge you to look at
it and consider it carefully.
The bill before the Senate sets the stage well for a conference with
the House. The House 302b for Transportation appropriations has
substantially more budget resources than the bill before us today. As a
result, the House passed bill is higher in a number of accounts than
the bill before the Senate today. Notably, the Coast Guard has $150
million more in the Operating Expenses account, $100 million more in
the AC&I account--the Coast Guard's capital improvement account, and
the FAA operations account is $200 million higher than the Senate bill.
We have included a number of flexibility provisions for the Secretary
of Transportation and for the FAA administrator to soften the impact of
those cuts from the President's budget request, but the fact remains
that we are below the House appropriated levels in those accounts in
particular. In addition, there are a number of specific projects or
procurements that are included in the House bill that are not in ours,
and a number of initiatives in our bill that are not in the House-
passed bill. I believe that we can resolve all of these issues in
conference to the satisfaction of both bodies and present a conference
report that the President will sign.
We know of a few amendments to the bill and we would encourage those
Members who have amendments to come to the floor to offer them or to
see if they can be accepted. We want to work with Members where
possible and will seek time agreements on amendments so we can move the
bill.
Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I did not note my colleague,
Senator Lautenberg, has joined us. He is the former chairman of this
subcommittee and is now the ranking Democrat. I have enjoyed working
with him on this subcommittee. This will be the last Transportation
bill he will help manage. I can tell my colleagues that he has rendered
a great service to his State and to the country. He has been a lot of
help to me as I have worked through this process, the same road which
he has been down many more times.
Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent that a list of
revenue aligned budget authority be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S5090]]
REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full RABA
STATE Admin. TEA-21 committee
Distr. Distr. recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 41,620 56,296 60,784
Alaska.......................... 24,403 33,019 35,733
Arizona......................... 33,982 45,989 49,705
Arkansas........................ 27,252 36,857 39,629
California...................... 192,556 260,472 281,963
Colorado........................ 23,972 32,437 35,005
Connecticut..................... 31,060 42,018 45,543
Delaware........................ 9,079 12,289 13,269
District of Columbia............ 8,094 10,950 11,865
Florida......................... 98,866 133,774 144,775
Georgia......................... 72,971 98,720 106,972
Hawaii.......................... 10,580 14,312 15,525
Idaho........................... 15,797 21,359 23,146
Illinois........................ 69,077 93,428 101,422
Indiana......................... 48,609 65,756 71,291
Iowa............................ 24,576 33,244 36,048
Kansas.......................... 23,951 32,399 35,139
Kentucky........................ 36,905 49,925 54,114
Louisiana....................... 32,778 44,332 48,127
Maine........................... 10,896 14,739 15,782
Maryland........................ 33,696 45,585 49,396
Massachusetts................... 38,389 51,919 55,894
Michigan........................ 67,305 91,044 98,737
Minnesota....................... 30,608 41,395 44,962
Mississippi..................... 25,698 34,763 37,696
Missouri........................ 50,947 68,911 74,579
Montana......................... 20,374 27,577 29,776
Nebraska........................ 15,929 21,557 23,296
Nevada.......................... 14,846 20,089 21,736
New Hampshire................... 10,601 14,335 15,483
New Jersey...................... 55,014 74,409 80,765
New Mexico...................... 20,219 27,353 29,641
New York........................ 105,420 142,576 154,827
North Carolina.................. 57,943 78,390 84,939
North Dakota.................... 13,438 18,187 19,651
Ohio............................ 71,674 96,952 105,159
Oklahoma........................ 31,735 42,934 46,417
Oregon.......................... 25,248 34,140 36,537
Pennsylvania.................... 102,976 139,222 149,607
Rhode Island.................... 12,276 16,612 17,868
South Carolina.................. 34,553 46,751 50,215
South Dakota.................... 14,918 20,176 21,440
Tennessee....................... 47,385 64,099 69,511
Texas........................... 156,693 212,010 229,231
Utah............................ 16,581 22,429 24,333
Vermont......................... 9,372 12,682 13,715
Virginia........................ 53,715 72,671 78,633
Washington...................... 36,508 49,378 53,607
West Virginia................... 23,057 31,172 33,944
Wisconsin....................... 40,737 55,111 59,726
Wyoming......................... 14,316 19,373 20,846
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 2,089,193 2,826,115 3,058,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2001 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AND REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
States limitation \1\ RABA Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $478,393,294 $60,783,866 $539,177,160
Alaska........................................................ 273,338,905 35,732,730 309,071,635
Arizona....................................................... 386,599,345 49,704,732 436,304,077
Arkansas...................................................... 312,654,965 39,628,622 352,283,587
California.................................................... 2,211,981,611 281,962,890 2,493,944,501
Colorado...................................................... 275,490,135 35,004,926 310,495,061
Connecticut................................................... 353,217,355 45,542,794 398,760,149
Delaware...................................................... 103,731,809 3,268,662 117,000,471
District of Columbia.......................................... 93,741,325 11,865,040 105,606,365
Florida....................................................... 1,121,666,241 144,774,894 1,266,441,135
Georgia....................................................... 832,178,590 106,971,898 939,150,488
Hawaii........................................................ 121,240,964 15,525,466 136,766,430
Idaho......................................................... 181,168,531 23,146,002 204,314,533
Illinois...................................................... 795,299,213 101,421,628 896,720,841
Indiana....................................................... 555,444,640 71,291,154 626,735,794
Iowa.......................................................... 283,379,331 36,047,704 319,427,035
Kansas........................................................ 276,678,619 35,139,478 311,818,097
Kentucky...................................................... 423,684,551 54,114,368 477,798,919
Louisiana..................................................... 376,584,623 48,126,804 424,711,427
Maine......................................................... 124,948,152 15,782,338 140,730,490
Maryland...................................................... 386,612,173 49,395,874 436,008,047
Massachusetts................................................. 440,827,553 55,894,124 496,721,667
Michigan...................................................... 770,487,758 98,736,704 869,224,462
Minnesota..................................................... 352,733,729 44,961,774 397,695,503
Mississippi................................................... 295,425,345 37,695,966 333,121,311
Missouri...................................................... 585,613,867 74,578,504 660,192,371
Montana....................................................... 230,749,423 29,775,746 260,525,169
Nebraska...................................................... 183,090,968 23,295,844 206,386,812
Nevada........................................................ 169,145,618 21,736,264 190,881,882
New Hampshire................................................. 121,821,196 15,482,654 137,303,850
New Jersey.................................................... 632,567,758 80,764,838 713,332,596
New Mexico.................................................... 231,198,136 29,641,194 260,839,330
New York...................................................... 1,211,655,529 154,826,540 1,366,482,069
North Carolina................................................ 662,205,968 84,939,008 747,144,976
North Dakota.................................................. 153,765,807 19,650,708 173,416,515
Ohio.......................................................... 823,947,807 105,158,504 929,106,311
Oklahoma...................................................... 364,937,744 46,417,382 411,355,126
Oregon........................................................ 291,813,790 36,536,984 328,350,774
Pennsylvania.................................................. 1,190,371,427 149,606,534 1,339,977,961
Rhode Island.................................................. 139,958,730 17,867,894 157,826,624
South Carolina................................................ 393,474,564 50,215,418 443,689,982
South Dakota.................................................. 171,367,488 21,439,638 192,807,126
Tennessee..................................................... 544,746,298 69,511,398 614,257,696
Texas......................................................... 1,785,645,239 229,230,738 2,014,875,977
Utah.......................................................... 190,699,752 24,332,506 215,032,258
Vermont....................................................... 107,423,888 13,715,130 121,139,018
Virginia...................................................... 615,042,972 78,633,412 693,676,384
Washington.................................................... 421,802,708 53,606,740 475,409,448
West Virginia................................................. 267,976,665 33,943,800 301,920,465
Wisconsin..................................................... 465,112,354 59,725,798 524,838,152
Wyoming....................................................... 163,917,007 20,846,386 184,763,393
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 23,947,561,460 3,058,000,000 27,005,561,460
Allocation Program \2\........................................ 2,656,244,540 .............. 2,656,244,540
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 26,603,806,000 3,058,000,000 29,661,806,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Special Limitation (Minimum Guarantee, Appalachian Development Highway, High Priority Projects).
\2\ Includes Territorial High Priority Projects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, Senator
Shelby, with whom I have worked a number of years on more than one
committee, has established a working relationship that, frankly, I
treasure as one of the best I have had since I have been in the Senate.
We rarely agree on policy differences, but one thing we do agree on is
that we have respect for one another. We listen and try to resolve our
differences.
As everyone knows, the way we finally resolve differences is the
majority says this is what we are going to do, I concur, and we go
ahead and do it.
It has been a pleasure working with Senator Shelby and members of the
subcommittee over these past few years. This is my last Transportation
appropriations bill. I look forward to reaching agreement among our
colleagues and sending the bill to the House, resolving whatever
differences there might be, and the President signing it into law while
there is still time before we have an omnibus appropriations bill
before us.
This is a decent bill. It was reported out of the Appropriations
Committee yesterday by a unanimous vote. I thank Senator Shelby for his
leadership and skill in maneuvering around the number of obstacles that
invariably come up and still not have people angry or unwilling to
discuss their issues.
During yesterday's markup, a number of amendments were adopted that I
believe improve our initial subcommittee product. I, therefore, rise in
strong support of the bill and encourage my colleagues to support it as
well. Everybody is not going to get what they want in the bill. Senator
Shelby does not even though he is the chairman. I am the ranking member
and I do not get what I want, for sure. I would have permitted Senator
Shelby to be even more generous than he has been. That is his choice.
He treated me and the members of the committee fairly.
Over the last 14 years, I do not believe I have ever managed this
bill without expressing the importance of balancing how we address the
Nation's transportation needs, and that is to look at all modes. We
cannot be attentive to highways without being attentive to transit, by
way of example. It is not enough to look out for the marine safety
agenda and the Coast Guard; we also have to pay attention to the
aviation safety needs of the FAA. We must recognize that while some
States are wholly dependent on highways and rural aviation to meet
their transportation needs, other States depend heavily on commuter
rail and Amtrak to move their citizens. A balanced approach is what is
needed, and I believe the bill before us embodies that balance.
This bill fully funds the growth in highway and transit funding we
called for in TEA-21, the highway bill that was enacted a couple of
years ago. The bill also fully funds the request for Amtrak's core
capital grant. While the funding levels for certain accounts in the FAA
and Coast Guard might appear to be austere, a more indepth review of
the bill before us and prior actions by the Senate sheds some further
light on this situation.
Specifically, the bill before us would cut the Coast Guard by $257
million. However, it is important to note that only a few weeks ago the
Senate passed a supplemental appropriation of over $800 million for the
Coast Guard, and all of that supplemental funding will be available on
a multiyear basis.
That is one of the anomalies: We give an agency such as the Coast
Guard ever more responsibilities, whether it is just doing the
navigation assists, the buoys, and the charts, or whether it is
stopping illegal immigration, or whether it is pursuing drug transport
by boat, or whether it is managing the licensing of vessels that ply
our waters making sure they stay up to date and do not violate the
standards that are required for ships entering our waters. They are now
putting .50-caliber guns, and some larger, on helicopters in the Coast
Guard to intercept or interrupt the drug flow that is devastating our
country.
Whatever you need, the Coast Guard is always there. We are always
squeezing and squeezing, but this year we have figured out a way to
take care of it. There is no one who does not respect the Coast Guard
for the job they do and looks to them when an emergency arises. Whether
there is an oilspill or some other disaster that includes travel on the
seas, the Coast Guard is there.
In the case of the FAA's operations account, it appears we reduced
the administration's request by more than $240 million. It is important
to note that within the appropriations for the FAA's facilities and
equipment account, the bill includes $64 million for operating
expenses. That shortage we talked about, again, was the operations
account.
Moreover, as a result of an amendment I offered during the full
committee markup, there is now an additional $120 million available for
operating expenses from the $3.2 billion appropriations for airport
grants.
[[Page S5091]]
I want to clarify what I am discussing. I am talking about putting in
over $3 billion in airport grants, airport improvements, be it
terminals or access routes in and out. There are all kinds of things
for which the airports can use these funds so they can handle the
expanding need for passengers who want to take airplanes. I support it
100 percent. We cannot continue to expand a facility without having
enough of a crew--I will use the term--to manage it. One would never
dream of taking a ship that needs a 1,000-person crew and saying: OK,
we are going to put in new electronics, but we are going to cut down on
the size of the crew. We would never understand it nor agree to it.
The changes we have made enable this bill to provide a $634 million,
or 11-percent, increase for FAA operations. Nobody wants to be up in
the sky with too few controllers guiding the traffic as they do.
I fly a lot in the second seat in airplanes. That is the way I prefer
to travel. I know when the controllers are stressed or when the flight
service stations are not giving the data needed or when it delays
departures or takeoffs. We want to ensure safety, above all. When we
put our families in an airplane, whether it is a flight from New York
to Washington or whether it is a cross-country flight, we want to know
they are traveling in as safe a condition as possible. Our aviation
system is safe. I point that out.
But when it is not operating as it should, it comes out in delays. It
is akin to borrowing to pay your bills. The longer it takes to get a
flight started, the worse things become later on. We know that whether
it is a flight from New York to Washington, to use that example, or if
it is a flight from Denver to Los Angeles; what happens on that leg
from New York to Washington affects what happens on the leg from Denver
to L.A. That is the nature of the system. It is a huge system. It is
all interconnected. We have to have enough people in the key spots to
take care of things.
There are several other items of importance in this bill that I think
bear mentioning at this time.
I thank my subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby, for including
provisions in the bill to implement a national drunk driving standard
of .08 blood alcohol content. This provision passed the Senate in 1998
by an overwhelming margin. However, the House never had an opportunity
to vote on the measure.
The administration still strongly supports implementation of .08 as
the national standard for blood alcohol content. It has been said by
several institutions that have studied this problem that by reducing
the standard across the country from .10--that is parts per million of
alcohol to blood--we could save 500 to 700 lives a year. It does not
sound like much in the abstract--500 to 700 lives a year--but if it is
a child in your household or a family member in your neighborhood or a
friend, the effects are devastating.
I remember one time I had a discussion with the occupant of the Chair
about a friend of his son's who was badly injured in an automobile
accident. The pain that permeates a community is unmatched. Thank
goodness we are focused on what happens with our children. Whenever we
have a chance to do something to protect them, we do it--protecting any
member of a family.
So when we ask now for .08 to be the standard, we are saying to 500
to 700 families, who will never know they have been protected from
disaster, that it was because we demanded a better standard for
automobile safety.
This provision works in the same way as the minimum drinking age law
which I authored back in 1984, signed into law by President Reagan, and
assisted by Secretary Elizabeth Dole at the time. To this point in
time, it is estimated that the minimum drinking age law saves over
1,000 lives a year. Over 15,000 families have been spared mourning over
the loss of a child because this applies almost exclusively to very
young people.
The .08 provision holds the promise of saving the lines of an
additional 500 persons every year. So I thank Senator Shelby again for
including this provision in the bill.
The Members should be aware there is a separate provision in this
bill that prohibits the administration from implementing its newly
proposed ``hours of service'' regulations pertaining to truck and bus
drivers. Many interested groups have voiced strong opposition to the
administration's proposed rule. I personally oppose certain aspects of
it, as well. However, I have concerns with the remedy that is proposed
in the bill.
The administration has already shown renewed willingness to
reconsider aspects of this rule by extending the comment period on
their proposal by 90 days. So it gives those who have views about what
this bill should look like or the conditions it should carry an extra
90 days to present those views, and then perhaps we will take the
subject up again. I note that this prohibition is not included on the
House side, so it is something that may come up in the conference.
I hope that before we go to conference, all concerned Members can
discuss this issue in the time that is available with Secretary Slater,
to discuss this issue and advance the cause of safety on our highways.
Finally, I thank all the members of the Transportation Subcommittee
for their friendship and assistance throughout the process. I am not
talking exclusively about the Democrats. We worked with Republicans.
Sometimes there are disagreements in policy that can't be bridged, but
we talk about it, and we try to iron out the problems and see if we can
accommodate, by consensus, the bill. We have again delivered a
unanimously supported bill to the floor.
I especially thank Senator Shelby again. His leadership of the
subcommittee has been excellent. He has always kept me, the minority
ranking member, informed of his plans for the subcommittee. He has been
evenhanded in his approach to addressing Members' funding priorities.
We have developed a good friendship throughout this process.
I want to say, while the chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee is here, that I thank him, as well, for his willingness to
listen. Too much listening often kills the time that a chairman can get
his bill through, but Senator Stevens held his patience, his temper,
and he permitted us to air our views, and we got the bill done in very
good form.
I also extend my thanks to Senator Robert C. Byrd, who is the ranking
member on the Appropriations Committee. I have worked with him since my
first day in the Senate. He is a brilliant, patient man and has been a
leader for me, a mentor for me. Even with all this white hair, we still
can have mentors and enjoy a relationship. We can still learn. I have
found that out. My kids teach me that every day. But the relationship
between Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd is excellent, as we have
always seen in this Appropriations Committee.
I also give a special thanks to my team, to Peter Rogoff, who so
skillfully manages the staff on our side, Denise Matthews, Laurie
Saroff, and Mitch Warren on the Democratic side. And to Wally Burnett;
he always knows what side of the aisle he works for and makes sure he
is diligent about it, but he makes certain that our messages get
through and that they do have a hearing before the bill gets put to
bed. I appreciate Wally's leadership, and Joyce Rose and Paul Doerrer,
as well.
With that, if there are any amendments Members want to bring to the
floor, they ought to do that. This bill was moved expeditiously,
carefully through the process. It is here. So we can eliminate much of
the griping and complaining about having bills linger on forever and
winding up--in the final analysis, before the October 1 fiscal year
starts, the new year--in an omnibus bill, where a bunch of things are
crashed together, without having a good, comfortable feeling about what
is in the bill: How does it affect my State? How does it affect the
country? If you get it the last minute, you do not have a chance to
review those things.
Here we have a bill that has been carefully engineered and is ready
to go. We would like to get it done. If I asked the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee when he would like to get it done, he would
say certainly this afternoon. But we will be taking amendments. That is
the process. Hopefully, we can get it over to the conference committee
and maybe have this bill signed into law by the time the next break
comes at the end of June.
[[Page S5092]]
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the pending bill is on Transportation
appropriations. I wish to comment not only on the content of the bill
but on the managers of the bill.
I am sorry they are not here, though I note the chairman of the full
committee is.
I thank the chairman, Senator Shelby of Alabama, for the courtesies
and cordiality he extended to me as he worked on the physical
infrastructure needs of Maryland. I am continually grateful for his
cooperation.
I also want to say something about a very dear friend, and pay my
respects to someone I have worked with up and down the Northeast
corridor, on the highways and byways of Baltimore, of Maryland, and our
country. That is, of course, the very distinguished Senator from New
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
When I came to the Senate in 1986 and was sworn in in 1987, I was the
very first Democratic woman ever elected to the Senate in her own
right. At the time of my arrival, there was only one other woman in the
Senate, the very wonderful Senator from Kansas, Ms. Nancy Kassebaum.
When I gave speeches out in the community, they would say: Senator
Mikulski, what is it like to be the only Democratic woman Senator? I
would say that although I was all by myself, I was never alone because
there were wonderful men in the Senate who helped me get started, who
showed me how to be effective, and how to be a very good Senator. Of
course, I had a great senior Senator, Mr. Paul Sarbanes. I had the help
of the then-chairman of the full committee, Senator Bob Byrd, and
others, such as Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd.
But also right there in appropriations was someone who I counted on
and looked up to, and who was really a help, my very good friend,
Senator Lautenberg. That is why I was never by myself because I could
turn to Senator Lautenberg.
What a way he had on appropriations--bringing his businessman's savvy
and yet his total compassion for people. He brought to the
Appropriations Committee a need to see how we could be compassionate
about people today and yet look at the long-range needs of our country.
That is what he brought to the Transportation Subcommittee.
While we were working on how to build America and its physical
infrastructure, Senator Lautenberg looked beyond bricks and mortar. He
was looking at people.
It was under his leadership that he brought to our attention the
issue related to terrorism and how we could protect our people, whether
it was on the high seas or at airports.
He was the one who talked about the impact of smoking and what it
meant to both airline passengers as well as those who worked on the
airlines.
Most recently, he has also talked about the issue of the impact of
high blood alcohol levels on the whole issue of drunk driving.
Senator Lautenberg brought public health and a public safety agenda
to the Transportation Subcommittee. It has served the Nation well
because we not only built communities but we have been able to save
lives because of what I call ``the Lautenberg approach,'' which is
putting people along with bricks and mortar. We are building
communities and saving lives.
I hope long after the distinguished Senator no longer officially
serves the people of New Jersey that ``the Lautenberg approach'' can be
an approach that the Senate continues always thinking about people--
putting people first, looking at every opportunity to enhance the
public safety and the public health of the people of this country and
the people who visit this country.
Again, although I was all by myself, I was never alone. The American
people owe Senator Lautenberg a great debt of gratitude. People are
alive because of him today. I owe him a debt that I can never repay,
except to follow the Lautenberg method.
Senator Lautenberg will always be with me in every day as long as I
continue to be a Senator and a public servant.
Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their kind attention, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my pal from Maryland. We have
been good friends. Senator Mikulski said something that got my
attention. She said she has looked up to me. We have differences in
height in a lot of places, but no one has ever looked down to Senator
Mikulski. She is a giant. What a welcome addition she was when she
first graced the Democratic Party with her presence, followed by nine
others.
What a difference women have made in this body--not just cleaning up
the language, which helped, but also in making sure that we understood
there was a far different point of view on many issues. As Senator
Mikulski so clearly said and has always said, she listened. We can
steal a couple of things from commercials to say that when Senator
Barbara Mikulski speaks, people listen. The Members here listen.
We share a common background in many ways. We both have Polish roots.
Second, we both have what I call an ordinary person's background; she
in the bakery, and me in the newspaper store with our families trying
to eke out a living each and every day.
One of the things that I thought we ought to do here, although
probably would not get enough votes to carry, is every Senator ought to
spend a week in poverty living with a family in either an urban our
rural environment to kind of get a feeling for what it is to worry
about putting food on the table, about putting decent clothing on a
child's back, not stylish things but decent clothing, a roof over their
heads, a grandparent or a parent aging and needing help. What a
difference.
Senator Mikulski brought that background, as I hope I did to our
function here. That is why we have a special kinship because we care
about the people we serve.
One of the happiest moments I have had since I have been in the
Senate was the other day. I went to visit a school for the blind in New
Jersey, the only one that operates in New Jersey. It is run by the
Sisters of Joseph of Peace. With help from colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee and throughout the Senate, I was able to get
some funding so they could build a relatively modest facility. They
named a room after me in an ``Independent Life Section'' where they try
to educate people on how to live by themselves, though visually
impaired and sometimes in total blindness. How do you get by?
I came in and there was a little child. I have a weakness for little
kids because my oldest grandchild is 6. I have seven, six following
him, and No. 8 is going to be on the way before No. 1 turns 7. They are
a beautiful litter of puppy dogs. They are so cute I can only smile
when I think about them.
This little child was 7. She was smaller in stature because her
mother was an alcoholic, and she has fetal alcohol syndrome, which
reduces size, in effect, and physical and mental health. This child was
as bright as any child I have ever met. I picked her up, she said:
What's your name?
I said: Frank.
She said: OK, Frank.
She rubbed her hands through my hair. She said: It feels sticky. I
said: Yes, I put stuff on my hair. She asked: What kind of stuff? I
wasn't doing advertising so I didn't give her the name.
Her vision is impaired with similar to a mesh screen in front of her
eyes. The only way she can focus her vision is turning her head. Her
vision is like Swiss cheese; she had to constantly turn her head to
catch the channel through which she could see.
She was so bright. We wound up with a picture of her and me in the
paper, me laughing, with her hands running through my hair.
If there is ever a doubt about the work we do here, about what it is
we debate so harshly at times, the things we legislate, the laws we
write, about the ultimate test of whether or not we have done the right
thing, how does it affect people? What is the impact on a family? What
is the impact on a child?
[[Page S5093]]
What is the impact of a loss due to a drunk driver in a family? What
is the loss when a child 6 years old takes a gun and kills another 6-
year-old? What is the impact? It is not only that family; it is the
entire community, the entire school. What affect did Columbine have?
Was it only the kids who were shot at, the kids who were pleading for
help from the police? The kids who were running away in fear? No, it
was the entire character of our country.
We have to think about those things and their impact. Are these a
question of States rights, of rights other than the rights to bring up
a child in safety? What is the most important right?
What was the Million Mom March about? The million moms marched
because they were so hurt, so anguished that no one was listening
sufficiently to say, OK, sensible gun control. We weren't taking away
everybody's gun. If people want to hunt, they have a right to hunt.
People need them for law enforcement jobs. Or if someone really thinks
they need it for protection, let them get a license and be identified.
A million moms were down here to say: Please help us.
That is the measure. That is what I have always found from Senator
Mikulski, who manages this very important bill, VA-HUD, that takes care
of veterans, housing, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. She
does a remarkable job and we keep squeezing.
My relationship with Senator Mikulski, my relationship with other
dear friends in the Senate is what I will miss terribly. This has been
one great experience. My desk is a couple rows back. If only my father
or my mother could have seen what happens when I open the top of my
desk. It says: Harry Truman, Missouri. He sat where I sit now. My
parents came here from Ellis Island with not a dime. They didn't
understand the language. My parents were brought here as little kids.
They wanted to be in America; they wanted to talk English; they wanted
to be part of the society. And they worked at it.
We are in this illustrious place. As Senator Byrd will state, about
1,800 Members have served in the Senate since the founding of this
country. And here we are, two good friends, sharing the same.
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. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, each and every one of my colleagues has
received a letter signed by this Senator and by Senators Bryan and
Feinstein on the subject of CAFE standards--that is to say, the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--relating to gas mileage of
automobiles.
In that Dear Colleague letter, we indicated there would be a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution on that subject that would come before the
Senate during the course of the debate on this Transportation
appropriations bill. The reason we had adopted that course of action,
identical to the course of action we took last year, is that the Senate
bill itself has no reference, one way or another, to automobile and
small truck fuel economy. The House bill, however--as it has for at
least 10 consecutive years--prohibits the use of any funds appropriated
in this bill for even the study of increasing the mandated fuel economy
of automobiles and small trucks in the United States.
As a consequence, it seemed to us the only way we could get at this
subject, and perhaps reverse that very head-in-the-sand policy that has
plagued us for so long, was somehow or another to express the views of
the Senate on the subject.
A year ago, 40 Senators voted with us, if my memory serves me
correctly; 57 voted against us.
This year, however, the situation on appropriations bills has
changed. It has changed effectively by the readoption of rule XVI and
the extension of rule XVI, not only to substantive amendments but to
sense-of-the-Senate amendments as well. As a consequence, we now need
to notify our colleagues we will deal with this question in a different
fashion.
The proponents of better fuel economy standards have not yet met
formally to discuss our various alternatives, but in my view they are
basically two in nature. Technically, what is before us at this point
is the House bill, including the prohibition against spending any money
on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, with an amendment that
strikes everything after the enacting clause and substitutes the
Senate-reported bill for the House bill.
So at this point, an amendment is in order to strike that funding
prohibition in the House bill, which will give us a direct vote on the
issue, though that House provision, together with every other House
provision, will eventually be stricken in any event by the adoption of
the Senate amendment.
Our other option is to wait until the end of the debate, wait until
final passage of the Transportation appropriations bill, and make a
motion to instruct the Senate conferees to uphold the Senate position,
something the Senate conferees have notoriously failed to do during the
course of the last decade.
I am inclined to favor that latter course of action, but the group
has not yet made its decision. But we do wish all of our colleagues to
know we are not going to be engaged in any procedural legerdemain by
any stretch of the imagination. We will be debating this issue. We
regard the issue as vitally important.
Perhaps most significantly, I should like to say the ground of the
debate may be somewhat different from the debate a year ago, for
several reasons--at least three in number. The first of those reasons
is we were still living as a country in a fool's paradise a year ago, a
fool's paradise of abnormally low retail prices for gasoline. During
the course of the last 12 months, of course, we have been subjected to
a huge runup in gasoline prices motivated almost entirely by the
reanimation of OPEC and its throttling back on petroleum production
among its various members.
This left us earlier this year with what I considered to be the
humiliating spectacle of a Secretary of Energy traveling from one OPEC
country to another, hat in hand, asking those OPEC countries: Please,
please, please, resume higher production of your product and, thus,
lower those product prices.
The point was that we had no bargaining ability as the United States
of America whatsoever to accomplish that goal, and while there was a
brief respite, though nothing like a return to the original status quo
in gasoline prices, we now know they are, once again, very much on the
rise: increases of 30 to 50 cents a gallon in many places in the
Midwest that have special air pollution requirements, the highest
prices reported yesterday in the Washington Post, perhaps forever.
We can look forward with apprehension but with a real expectation of
regular gasoline prices hitting $2 a gallon in the relatively near
future. I cannot possibly emphasize enough the fact that this is a
pricing structure that is simply beyond our control because we have
allowed ourselves to become so dependent on foreign oil. The largest
single percentage of our trade deficit, which is itself alarmingly
high, is due to the importation of foreign oil. We have three possible
answers to that question: We must either increase domestic production,
encourage to an even greater extent than we do the use of alternative
fuels, or to use the fuels we have more efficiently and more
effectively. The latter not only has a very positive impact on the cost
of gasoline to every consumer in the United States but also will, in a
very significant fashion, help clean up our air. We will bring this
subject up once again.
Second is the proposition that last year we were told--I am not sure
entirely accurately--the law under which fuel economy was mandated did
not allow the Department of Transportation to consider the safety of
vehicles that would be designed to meet these standards.
It is our explicit intention this year, whatever the validity of that
argument, to allow the Department of Transportation, in fixing new
corporate average fuel economy standards, to consider factors of
safety. That was a major argument a quarter of a century ago against
the original CAFE standards. We were told everyone would be driving a
subcompact and death rates would go up markedly. We
[[Page S5094]]
are not driving subcompacts. Our highways are far safer than they were
25 years ago, and will be, again, I am convinced, if we once again
significantly increase our mandated fuel economy. In any event, we are
explicitly allowing that consideration.
Third, whether one is on this side of the political aisle or the
other side of the political aisle, it is obvious this process will not
be completed during the course of this administration. It will be
another administration, whether a Democratic or a Republican
administration, that will make that final decision, and the final
decision will, for all practical purposes, be subject to the same kind
of prohibition that has prevented the study of corporate average fuel
economy for the last two and a half decades.
This is a vitally important matter. I commend Chairman Shelby and
Chairman Stevens, once again, for not including any such prohibition in
the Senate bill. This time we want the prohibition stricken from the
final package, as well as not being included in the Senate bill itself.
It seems to me to be paradoxical and foolish that the United States of
America should consistently say, in spite of our magnificent
technologies, in spite of the huge advances in technologies in the last
couple of decades, that this is a subject we will not even study. And
that, in effect, is what the present law requires of us.
It makes Luddites of us. It says we are afraid of such a study. It is
perfectly acceptable to increase our dependence on petroleum products
each and every year; that in spite of the technology, we are going to
be as ostriches with our heads in the sand and not go forward at all.
I believe that to be an indefensible position, but as I say, this is
just simply both the invitation to join us in this cause and a
statement that there will be a vote on this issue. Whether in the form
of an amendment to the House bill or in the form of instructions to the
conferees is not yet certain.
There will be plenty of additional time to debate this issue, and
debate it we will and vote on it we will. I am confident of a greater
number of votes this year, for the reasons I have already outlined,
than was the case last year. I hope my colleagues will join me in
saying the United States will, once again, lead not only in abstract
technology but in applied technology, and begin at least not only to
clean up our air but to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save
money for our constituents every single day of their lives in which
they drive automobiles and trucks.
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.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. 3427 To Amendment No. 3426
(Purpose: To provide protection against the risks to the
public that are inherent in the interstate transportation of
violent prisoners.)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself and
Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 3427 to
amendment No. 3426.
Mr. DORGAN. 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:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of
1999'' or ``Jeanna's Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) increasingly, States are turning to private prisoner
transport companies as an alternative to their own personnel
or the United States Marshals Service when transporting
violent prisoners;
(2) often times, these trips can last for days if not
weeks, as violent prisoners are dropped off and picked up at
a network of hubs across the country;
(3) escapes by violent prisoners during transport by
private prisoner transport companies have not been uncommon;
and
(4) oversight by the Attorney General is required to
address these problems.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Crime of violence.--The term ``crime of violence'' has
the same meaning as provided in section 924(c)(3) of title
18, United States Code.
(2) Drug trafficking crime.--The term ``drug trafficking
crime'' has the same meaning as provided in section 924(c)(2)
of title 18, United States Code.
(3) Private prisoner transport company.--The term ``private
prisoner transport company'' means any entity other than the
United States, a State or the inferior political subdivisions
of a State which engages in the business of the transporting
for compensation, individuals committed to the custody of any
State or of the inferior political subdivisions of a State,
or any attempt thereof.
(4) Violent prisoner.--The term ``violent prisoner'' means
any individual in the custody of a State or the inferior
political subdivisions of a State who has previously been
convicted of or is currently charged with a crime of
violence, a drug trafficking crime, or a violation of the Gun
Control Act of 1968, or any similar statute of a State or the
inferior political subdivisions of a State, or any attempt
thereof.
(d) Federal Regulation of Prisoner Transport Companies.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations relating to the transportation of violent
prisoners in or affecting interstate commerce.
(2) Standards and requirements.--The regulations shall
include, at a minimum--
(A) minimum standards for background checks and
preemployment drug testing for potential employees;
(B) minimum standards for factors that disqualify employees
or potential employees similar to standards required of
Federal correction officers;
(C) minimum standards for the length and type of training
that employees must undergo before they can perform this
service;
(D) restrictions on the number of hours that employees can
be on duty during a given time period;
(E) minimum standards for the number of personnel that must
supervise violent prisoners;
(F) minimum standards for employee uniforms and
identification, when appropriate;
(G) standards requiring that violent prisoners wear
brightly colored clothing clearly identifying them as
prisoners, when appropriate;
(H) minimum requirements for the restraints that must be
used when transporting violent prisoners, to include leg
shackles and double-locked handcuffs, when appropriate;
(I) a requirement that when transporting violent prisoners,
private prisoner transport companies notify local law
enforcement officials 24 hours in advance of any scheduled
stops in their jurisdiction and that if unscheduled stops are
made, local law enforcement should be notified in a timely
manner, when appropriate;
(J) minimum standards for the markings on conveyance
vehicles, when appropriate;
(K) a requirement that in the event of an escape by a
violent prisoner, private prisoner transport company
officials shall immediately notify appropriate law
enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the escape
occurs, and the governmental entity that contracted with the
private prisoner transport company for the transport of the
escaped violent prisoner;
(L) minimum standards for the safety of violent prisoners;
and
(M) any other requirement the Attorney General deems to be
necessary to prevent escape of violent prisoners and ensure
public safety.
(3) Federal standards.--Except for the requirements of
paragraph (2)(G), the regulations promulgated under this
section shall not provide stricter standards with respect to
private prisoner transport companies than are applicable to
Federal prisoner transport entities.
(e) Enforcement.--Any person who is found in violation of
the regulations established by this section shall be liable
to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $10,000 for each violation and, in addition, to the
United States for the costs of prosecution. In addition, such
person shall make restitution to any entity of the United
States, of a State, or of an inferior political subdivision
of a State, which expends funds for the purpose of
apprehending any violent prisoner who escapes from a prisoner
transport company as the result, in whole or in part, of a
violation of regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection
(d)(1).
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention, just for purposes of
understanding, to speak on this amendment for a few minutes. I
understand that some will raise rule XVI on this issue. This is an
important issue, and I want to have the opportunity, in this context,
to discuss this legislation.
This amendment is in the form of a bill that I have introduced with
my colleagues, Senators Ashcroft, Grams,
[[Page S5095]]
Leahy, and others. A bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill
dealing with the interstate transportation of violent criminals around
this country.
I want to describe why I think this is important. I have spoken about
this on the floor several times in the past.
I show you a picture of a man named Kyle Bell. Kyle Bell is shown
standing in this picture in shackles and handcuffs. He is a man who
murdered an 11-year-old girl in Fargo, ND. But that was not all of his
crime spree. He has committed other unspeakable acts, criminal acts.
His criminal behavior culminated in the murder of a young girl named
Jeanna North in Fargo, ND.
Kyle Bell was apprehended, sent to trial, and convicted of murder.
When convicted of murder in the State of North Dakota, Kyle Bell was to
go to the penitentiary to spend the rest of his life. But instead, Kyle
Bell was put on a bus that was operated by a private company called
TransCor. TransCor is a pretty good size company that hauls prisoners
around America by contract. TransCor put Kyle Bell on a bus with about
12 other prisoners. He was being transported, under the Prisoner
Exchange Program, to another prison in another State to be
incarcerated.
They got to New Mexico. In fact, he was not going south, he was going
straight west, over to the State of Oregon. But they got to New Mexico,
and this Kyle Bell escaped.
The bus stopped for gas, apparently. One security guard from this
private company was buying gas. Another two were asleep in the bus. And
another was probably in buying a cheeseburger, as best we can tell. And
so with both guards in the bus asleep--Kyle Bell apparently produced a
key for his shackles and handcuffs, crawled out the roof of the bus,
and while he was in civilian clothing being transferred in this bus,
walked through the parking lot of a big shopping center, and they
didn't see him again.
Kyle Bell, this child killer, was on the loose for several months. He
has now been apprehended and he is back in prison. But I started
evaluating what happened. It sounds as if the three stooges were given
custody of a convicted child killer: two guards asleep, another guard
buying a cheeseburger. What happened here? The more I look at it, the
more I understand that there is something fundamentally wrong on our
highways.
Do you know we have private companies taking possession of violent
offenders, murderers, and others, to transport around the country, and
there is not one regulation they must meet in order to hire themselves
out as transport companies? You can be a retired county sheriff, and
you and your brother-in-law and your wife can rent a minivan and say
you are in business to haul prisoners, someone will turn a convicted
murderer over to you, and away you go.
Interestingly enough, when they were transporting Kyle Bell, this
child killer--he escaped in New Mexico--do you know how long it took
them to understand he was gone, that he was not on the bus anymore?
Nine hours later they finally counted their prisoners on the bus, to
discover they had lost a child killer--9 hours later.
We have a circumstance in this country where when you pull up to the
gas pumps next to a minivan or a small bus, you may not know it but you
may be pulling up next to a minivan with four convicted murderers being
transported by a retired police officer and his brother-in-law.
In fact, in Iowa, a man and his wife, hiring themselves out as a
transport company, showed up at a prison to take possession of five
convicted murderers and a convicted kidnapper. And the prison warden
said: You've got to be kidding me. You and your wife have come to take
possession of five convicted murderers and a convicted kidnapper? The
Warden said: You've got to be kidding me. But the warden turned the
prisoners over to this man and his wife. And, of course, they escaped.
It is absurd for us to be turning violent criminals over to private
companies that do not have to meet any basic or reasonable standards.
As I indicated, Kyle Bell is now back in prison.
We do not know what he did when he was on the loose. He was on the
loose for some long while. They apprehended him in Texas, as a matter
of fact.
Then, just a couple of weeks ago, I read in the newspaper that the
State of Nevada was going to send a convicted murderer to North Dakota
under the Prisoner Exchange Program, a man named James Prestridge. So
Nevada was going to send a murderer to North Dakota. James Prestridge,
along with an armed robber, escaped in California while being
transported. The two of them were gone. Once again, we had apparently a
kind of three-stooges approach by the people who were supposed to have
been guarding these violent criminals.
They found the armed robber who escaped with Mr. Prestridge just
south of the Mexican border with a bullet through his head, dead. They
apprehended James Prestridge recently. He is now back in prison.
Here is a man who is serving a life sentence without parole for
first-degree murder, and he is turned over to a private company and
that private company loses him. Extraditions International is the name
of that company.
My proposition is this. When we in our criminal justice system
convict violent criminals, convict people of murder, convict Kyle Bell
of killing Jeanna North, I do not want those prisoners turned over to a
private company that is going to put them in a minivan and transport
them across the country with guards who are ill-prepared and ill-
trained and follow no procedures. I do not want that to happen.
The private companies, if they are going to transport criminals
across State lines in this country, ought to have to meet basic
standards.
The amendment I have introduced--again, a bipartisan amendment--says
the Department of Justice should establish regulations that must be met
by private companies that are going to haul violent offenders. The
standards should be no more than the standards that exist for law
enforcement when they transport the same criminals.
I should mention, incidentally, the U.S. Marshals Service has a
service, for a flat fee, of taking these child killers and violent
offenders anywhere in the country. In fact, I don't believe State and
local governments ought to contract with private companies to transport
violent criminals, as they now do.
The legislation I propose would require that a private company that
is preparing to do this must meet basic safety standards with respect
to training and other kinds of security circumstances that would give
the American people some comfort that they are not in jeopardy by
driving down the highway only to confront a minivan or a bus carrying
20 criminals coast to coast.
It might be useful to read into the Record other circumstances that
persuade me there is something wrong in this area.
On January 22 of this year, three prisoners escaped while a van
transporting them stopped at a minimart for a restroom break. While the
two guards weren't looking, two inmates jumped into the front seat
where the keys had been left in the ignition. How much judgment did
that take? You are hauling criminals around the country. You stop at a
gas station to go to the bathroom. You leave the keys in the vehicle. I
am sorry; something is wrong. It is serious.
On July 24, last year, two men convicted of murder escaped from a van
while being transported from Tennessee to Virginia. The two guards went
into a fast food restaurant to get breakfast for the convicts. When
they returned, they didn't notice the convicts had freed themselves
from their leg irons, possibly with a smuggled key. While one guard
went back into the restaurant, the other stood watch--there is some
improvement; at least they are standing watch--but he forgot to lock
the van door. The inmates kicked it open and fled.
On July 30, 1997, convicted rapist and kidnapper Dennis Glick escaped
from a van while being transported from Salt Lake City to Pine Bluff,
AR. While still in the van, Glick grabbed a gun from a guard who had
fallen asleep, took seven prisoners, a guard, and a local rancher
hostage and led 60 law enforcement officials on an all-night chase
across Colorado. He was finally recaptured the next morning.
I won't read all of these, but there are plenty of them.
A husband-and-wife team of guards showed up at an Iowa State prison
to transport six inmates, five of them
[[Page S5096]]
convicted murderers, from Iowa to New Mexico. When the Iowa prison
warden saw there were only two guards to transport six dangerous
inmates, he reportedly responded: ``You've got to be kidding me.''
Despite his concerns, the warden released the prisoners into the
custody of the guards when told the transport company had a contract.
Despite explicit instructions not to stop anywhere but the county jails
or State prisons until they reached their destination, the guards
decided to stop at a rest stop in Texas. Of course, the rest is
predictable. The six inmates escaped, stole the van, led police on a
high-speed chase, and so on.
My point is, I wasn't aware, and I will bet most Members of Congress
are not aware, that State and local governments are routinely turning
violent criminals over to the hands of private companies for transport
across this country. Yet there is no basic standard, no set of
regulations to guarantee the safekeeping of those violent offenders. I
believe there ought to be. Republicans and Democrats who have joined us
on this amendment believe there ought to be. That is the purpose of the
amendment.
I understand this will probably be subject to rule XVI. I also
understand the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, is trying
to get this subcommittee markup moving. I sympathize with that. Senator
Lautenberg wants the same thing. They want to get this through. I fully
understand that. I hope the authorizing committee, where we hope to
have a hearing on this legislation, will allow us to get that hearing
and to advance this matter in another way, if in fact it is subject to
rule XVI.
It is my belief, and I think the belief of almost everyone, that
something needs to be done in this area to set some commonsense rules.
My first choice would be, if you have a violent offender, a criminal
who has been judged violent by his or her behavior, they ought never
leave the embrace of a law enforcement official. The address of someone
convicted of murder ought to be their prison cell until the end of
their term, with no time off for good behavior. Convict them and put
them in prison.
Instead, what is happening is, too often they are being convicted and
then under prisoner exchanges turned over to a private company for
transport, only to discover that it is not very secure with respect to
this transport: Guards who are ill prepared, vehicles that are not
sufficient, procedures that are nonexistent.
Lest one doubt that, when Kyle Bell escaped in New Mexico, a child
killer walked off the bus, a vicious child killer walked off the bus.
The guards in that bus didn't count heads to find out that 1 of their
inmates had escaped for 9 full hours. They didn't miss a child killer
for 9 hours. Does anybody think this might be an area ripe for some
thoughtful regulations and some thoughtful restraint? I think it is.
That is why I offer the amendment.
I thank the Senator for his indulgence. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of the bill, I
make the point of order that the amendment violates rule XVI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
Mr. CONRAD. 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 remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 2729
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that will be
before the body tomorrow. That is a motion to instruct conferees on an
issue we have debated last year and in previous years dealing with
corporate average fuel economy, CAFE. That is an acronym that many
Americans are not familiar with, but it is something that can have a
profound and important impact on their lives. Perhaps a little
background will be instructive.
In the early 1970s, our economy was sent into a convulsion as a
result of our dependence on imported oil, primarily from the Middle
East. The OPEC oil embargo, followed by the fall of the Shah of Iran
later in the decade, sent fuel prices skyrocketing, plummeted the
economy into a situation known as ``stagflation,'' and the effect was
devastating.
Congress responded in 1974 with a piece of legislation designed to
make the U.S. less dependent upon foreign oil and to provide for better
fuel economy, thereby saving American consumers millions of dollars
each year in fuel costs and improving the quality of the air and
reducing our trade deficit.
In 1974, before these CAFE or fuel economies were established for the
first time, the average fuel economy of all vehicles in America was
13.8 miles per gallon. As a result of those CAFE standards adopted in
1975, the current average is 28.1 miles per gallon. That is slightly
more than twice the average economy in 1974. The effect of that has
produced each and every day a savings of 3 million barrels of oil that
would otherwise have been consumed.
That issue was not an easy issue for the Congress to deal with in
1974 because testimony before the congressional committees suggested if
such standards were required, and they were set on an incremental basis
to be expanded over the course of a decade, it was asserted that
terrible things would happen in terms of consumer choice and size of
the vehicle. In 1974, the Ford Motor Company testified this proposal
for the fuel economy standards, which ultimately doubled fuel economy,
would require a Ford product line consisting of either all sub-Pinto-
sized vehicles--some may recall that was the smallest automobile that
Ford made at the time--or some mix of vehicles ranging from a ``sub-
subcompact'' to perhaps a Maverick. The clear thrust of the testimony
is, if these fuel economy standards are imposed upon the industry, a
full-sized four-door vehicle would be impossible to produce.
Let me skip for a moment to the present. Today, the largest
automobile--I am not talking about a sport utility vehicle--that Ford
makes has better fuel economy than the smallest produced in 1974. There
is, indeed, a full range of vehicle choice available to American
consumers.
Chrysler Motors also joined in with the Big Three and made this
statement in 1974:
In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines
and car models, including most full-sized sedans and station
wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing sub-
compact-sized cars--or even smaller ones.
That was the testimony by Chrysler.
General Motors went on to say:
This legislation would have the effect of placing
restrictions on the availability of 5 and 6 passenger cars--
regardless of consumer needs or intended use of vehicles.
Once this legislation was enacted, the automotive industry, with some
of the best and brightest engineering minds anywhere in the world, went
to work. Indeed, astonishing technological developments occurred and
today Americans enjoy a full range of automobiles in terms of size and
choice. We have been successful in saving 3 million barrels of oil each
and every day, reducing to some extent our dependence on imported
foreign fuel and alleviating, in part, the trade deficit.
Unfortunately, no new fuel requirements have been enacted since 1975.
Once again, the auto industry is suggesting that if, indeed, new fuel
economy standards are required, that customer choice, size of vehicle,
and a whole host of safety concerns, will place the American public at
risk.
I am not sure what it is. I happen to be an automobile buff. I am of
the age that I can recall the excitement of the introduction each year
of the new models, the changes and the configuration of lights, the
chrome, the fins, all of the things that in my generation were pretty
exciting stuff. And I love automobiles today.
So I come to the floor as a Member of this body not with any
antipathy toward automobiles. I freely acknowledge both my dependence
and my love of the American automobile. However, I must say there is
something that
[[Page S5097]]
must be part of a corporate culture in the auto industry which has
resisted over the years virtually any significant technological
improvement dealing with fuel efficiency, safety, or air pollution.
For decades, the automobile industry resisted the introduction of
airbags. It took my colleagues, Senator Gorton and I, a decade ago to
get that language changed. Today, Americans have a choice in their
safety. Many lives have been saved as a result of that. But the auto
industry strenuously resisted that effort.
Indeed, when catalytic converter technology came online, even though
the engineers acknowledged its significance, there was great resistance
to requiring the introduction of catalytic converters. Our air is
cleaner, our tailpipe emissions substantially less. Some of the major
cities of America that still struggle with pollution now have perhaps
twice as many vehicles on the road, but their air is cleaner than it
would have been but for these technological advancements.
There must be something in the corporate culture of the automobile
industry that resists this technology. These are remarkably able and
talented engineers, the best and brightest. I wish they had more
confidence in themselves.
We are placed in an anomalous situation wherein none of the
technology that has been available for the past quarter of a century,
25 years, that might have enabled us to move forward and to improve
fuel economy, to reduce our dependence on imported oil, has been used
to help improve quality.
Since 1975, a rider has been added in the other body to this
appropriations bill that prevents the Department of Transportation from
even considering, even looking at any technological changes. In effect,
it is a provision that requires us all to be deaf, dumb, and blind to
any technology that has been developed in the last quarter century. I
need not remind my colleagues and the American public that the last 25
years has been the most remarkable quarter of a century since human
history was recorded in terms of technological advances; 25 years ago
all but a handful of people would have been totally mystified if the
term ``Internet'' was used. E-commerce was not a part of our
conversation. Nobody discussed e-mail or m-commerce. Indeed, most
Americans had never heard of cellular telephones. I just cite but two
of the more obvious and more dramatic technological changes that have
had a profound impact upon our economy.
Here are the facts that we confront today. Unfortunately, once again
in America we are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Mr.
President, 54 percent of the oil consumed in America is imported.
That leaves us vulnerable to the vicissitudes of foreign policy
considerations, instabilities, and political crises in the other parts
of the world. Our thirst for fuel continues. Now, even more timely, we
are seeing the price of gasoline rise to record levels. Earlier in the
year it achieved a high point, then dropped down, and now, with the
onset of the heavy driving season in the summer, we are seeing those
prices increase. So Americans are beginning to get hit in the
pocketbook. About 40 percent of all the oil we consume in America is
consumed by automobiles and light trucks or the sport utility vehicles.
So we have an opportunity to consider a number of public policy
issues. No. 1, is it possible to achieve improved fuel economy, still
leaving us a range of choice in selection of our vehicles? Would anyone
argue that would be a bad result if it could be achieved? Fuel costs
are responsible for roughly a third of the enormous trade deficit we
generate each year in this country, the one economic indicator--in a
field which otherwise has nothing but bright horizons in front of us--
that is troubling to us economically. We cannot long sustain those
kinds of trade imbalances, not for an indefinite period of time.
So we have the opportunity, by a policy initiative, to perhaps reduce
at least the one-third of that trade deficit that is attributed to the
foreign oil we import each year. Would anyone argue it would be a bad
policy for us to be less dependent and, therefore, to reduce our trade
deficit to an extent by improving fuel economy? I think not.
I believe this past winter was the warmest on record in the
Northeast. There is no question dramatic changes are occurring to our
climate. Not everyone will agree those are attributable to global
warming, but I think there is a growing consensus in the scientific
sector that global warming is for real, that there is an impact that is
occurring. One of the elements that contributes to that global warming
is carbon dioxide emissions. With improved fuel economy, we reduce
those emissions.
So there are three public policy initiatives that could all benefit
if we could improve fuel economy. We would reduce the amount of fuel we
consume in the automotive sector; we could reduce our trade imbalance;
we could improve the quality of air; and as Americans are increasingly
concerned about the price of filling up at the gas station, we could
save Americans millions and millions of dollars each year.
Notwithstanding all those positive public policy potentials, we are
left with a situation that the legislation before us will preclude the
Department of Transportation from even looking at the possibility that
an increase could occur. So the purpose of the motion to strike, which
Senator Gorton and Senator Feinstein and I and others will be offering
tomorrow, is not to set a standard at a precise or numerical number--
that was done in 1975--but simply permitting the Department of
Transportation to examine the technology that has been developed in the
last 25 years.
I believe it is almost impossible to argue that in a quarter of a
century there is not new technology that could be applied to automobile
efficiency that would not enable us to improve fuel economy. To resist
that argument is akin to saying, as some did in the early part of the
19th century, we ought to lock up the U.S. Patent Office and close it
down because everything that can be invented has already been invented;
there are no new inventions. That is utter folly. We know the
technology of the last 25 years has been remarkable, extensive, and
pervasive in its impact.
So our plea tomorrow as we go to the floor will be: Unmuzzle,
unshackle, allow us to remove the blindfold and look at the technology
in a way we can improve fuel economy, in a way that will produce real
benefits for consumers, reducing the amount they have to pay, helping
clean up the environment, reducing the trade deficit, and reducing our
dependence on foreign oil.
These are public policy issues that we ought to be able to examine
without the restrictive riders that have been added each year since
1995. I look forward, as part of a bipartisan effort, to continuing
this discussion and argument tomorrow as we further process this
legislation. My purpose today is simply to alert my colleagues that
this debate will occur sometime tomorrow and ask them--indeed, plead
with them--to simply allow us to look at the technology.
We are not mandating anything. We are not setting any standards. We
are not making any policy judgments or pronouncements other than let's
take a look at what the technology of the last quarter of a century
might make possible and see if we cannot get better fuel economy,
particularly on the sport utility vehicles and light trucks that today
make up such a substantial part of the product mix that Americans are
purchasing for their personal transportation.
I yield the floor.
I do not believe any of my colleagues seek recognition. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now 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 only.
They include:
Three amendments by Senator McCain: One on Big Dig, one on airport
revenue, and one relevant;
[[Page S5098]]
One amendment by Senator Gorton on CAFE;
One amendment by Senator Allard on debt repayment;
Two amendments by Senator Cochran: One technical amendment and one
relevant;
One amendment by Senator Collins on SOS on high gas prices;
One relevant amendment by Senator Warner;
One amendment by Senator Voinovich on passenger rail flexibility;
The managers' package by Senator Shelby, and two relevant amendments;
One amendment by Senator Nickles on BAC;
One relevant amendment by Senator Gramm;
One amendment by Senator Domenici on rural air service;
One amendment by Senator Baucus on the Beartooth Highway;
Two relevant amendments by Senator Byrd;
One amendment by Senator Boxer on proposed rule on trucking;
One relevant amendment by Senator Conrad;
Two relevant amendments by Senator Daschle;
One relevant amendment by Senator Feingold;
One amendment by Senator Feinstein on farm worker safety;
One sense-of-the-Senate amendment by Senator Kohl on Coast Guard
funding;
Two relevant amendments by Senator Lautenberg;
Two amendments by Senator Leahy: One on nonpublic personal
disclosure, and one which is relevant;
Three relevant amendments by Senator Levin;
Two relevant amendments by Senator Reed;
Two amendments by Senator Robb: One on the Bristol Rail, and one on
the Coal Fields Expressway;
Two relevant amendments by Senator Torricelli;
One relevant amendment by Senator Wellstone;
And, two relevant amendments by Senator Wyden.
Mr. President, Senator Domenici wants to be added as one amendment to
that list. It is described as rural air services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope in the morning or early afternoon
we can obtain consent on a time for these amendments to be filed so we
can determine what we can work out, what we can accept, and what will
have to be debated and voted on.
I also am anxious to deal with the problem of adoption of the basic
bill that has come to the Senate from the Appropriations Committee. I
would like to also have that resolved tomorrow early in the afternoon,
if possible.
I am constrained to say as chairman of the committee that this year
is passing very quickly. We are now well into June. We have to have all
of these bills finished by July before we go to the recess and the
conventions during the August recess.
I urge Members to help us define the amendments that they wish to
offer and enter into time agreements once we are certain they are going
to offer them.
I thank the managers of the bill. I thank my friend, the chairman of
the committee, and the ranking member for what they are doing. I am
hopeful we can move this bill along. We have other bills that will be
ready to go as soon as this one is finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I salute the fact that the
appropriations chairman is anxious to get this finished. The
subcommittee chairman and I are also anxious.
But the one thing that concerns me--and I am not going to object to
the request that was made--is this: Normally, there is a time lapse for
filing the report during which there is time to review the report.
Suddenly, we are at a pell-mell pace. I want to get it finished.
I think it is fair to Senator Shelby, myself, and the Appropriations
Committee chairman to make sure this doesn't trample on anybody's
rights so that Senators have the opportunity to review. We are picking
up the pace considerably. Thus far, we have had three bills: MILCON,
legislative, and Defense. So we are not in the back of the pack by a
long shot.
This is a bill in which lots of people have an interest. I want to
ensure that our people have a chance to look at the report which was
filed today. It won't even be seen until tomorrow. We may have to
stretch our tolerance level a little bit to give folks a chance. I
don't want to drag my feet. Certainly, the Senator from Alabama knows
that. I want to be cooperative, and I want people to respond.
It is always a frustrating experience when we bring a bill to the
floor when time goes by and people who want to offer amendments don't
bring them down.
I hope someday there will be reform--it won't be during my tenure--
that says if you have amendments, you have to bring them up but that
you have every right to examine the documents that relate to a bill
before you are crowded out in a stampede. I offer that as a suggestion.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, is the unanimous consent request made by
Senator Stevens, the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations,
before the Senate right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. What is the pending business at the moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment is the pending
business.
Mr. SHELBY. 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.
amendment no. 3428 to amendment no. 3426
(Purpose: To modify a highway project in the State of Iowa)
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] for Mr. Harkin, for
himself and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered
3428.
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 amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. 3 . MODIFICATION OF HIGHWAY PROJECT IN POLK COUNTY,
IOWA.
The table contained in section 1602 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century is amended in item 1006 (112
Stat. 294) by striking ``Extend NW 86th Street from NW 70th
Street'' and inserting ``Construct a road from State Highway
141''.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a vote occur in
relation to the pending amendment at 5:40 p.m. and no second-degree
amendments be in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 3428.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3428. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan)
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
[[Page S5099]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Domenici
Moynihan
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3428) was agreed to.
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.
Amendment No. 3426
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be agreed to, which is the committee substitute for the House
bill, and the amendment be treated as original text for purposes of
further amendment, and that no points of order be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3426) was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resumes the Transportation bill at 9:45 a.m. in the morning,
Senator Voinovich be recognized to offer his amendment regarding
passenger rail flexibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, on behalf of
the leader, I announce that there will be no further rollcall votes
tonight.
It is the hope of the managers--Senator Lautenberg and I--that this
bill will be passed by 1 p.m. on Thursday, tomorrow. All Members have a
lot in this Transportation appropriations bill. I hope all Members who
have amendments will come forward. A lot of Members are already coming.
We are working them out. If we work together, I think we can work this
out tomorrow.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thought there was supposed to be a time
agreement for a vote on the amendment of Senator Voinovich. Was that
not in the agreement?
Mr. SHELBY. It is not.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope early in the morning we can get an agreement for
a specific time so we can move this bill forward. The other body is
working on the Health and Human Services bill. We have already reported
that bill out of committee. We were able to take that bill up. We also
have the foreign assistance bill that will be ready to be taken up on
the floor as soon as the House passes it. I hope we will be able to
finish this bill early tomorrow afternoon.
I thought we were going to get an agreement to vote on the Voinovich
amendment early tomorrow morning. But I hope we will be able to meet
early in the morning and get some timeframe on that amendment. I hope
my friends on the other side will agree with that.
We are coming in at 9:45, and the Voinovich amendment will be the
first amendment. But there is no time limit to vote on it.
We are hopeful we can finish this bill sometime early in the
afternoon, at 1 o'clock or so, go back to the Defense bill, and be
ready to take up another appropriations bill on Friday morning, the
next day.
I hope the parties will consider doing what we did in the Defense
bill and set a time limit for when these amendments that were listed in
this agreement will be filed tomorrow so we can take a look at them
and, hopefully, work many of them out without a vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the managers of the bill and to the
chairman of the full committee that on our side, in regards to the
Transportation appropriations bill, we believe we are in very good
shape to move forward just as quickly as the other side. We had one
amendment we were concerned about that would take a lot of time, but
the Senator stated that it will not be offered.
We are at a point where we think, if the Voinovich amendment doesn't
take very long, we can finish this fairly quickly.
____________________