[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.

                          ____________________