[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 102 (Friday, July 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7995-S7998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 2299, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1025, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the 
Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
  This bill was reported unanimously by both the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation as well as the full Appropriations 
Committee. This bill has been carefully crafted with the regular input 
of Senator Shelby and his staff.
  The tradition of this subcommittee has always been one of 
bipartisanship. So long as I have the privilege of chairing this 
subcommittee, I intend to continue that tradition.
  The bill as approved by the Appropriations Committee totals $60.1 
billion in total budgetary resources. That includes obligations 
released from the highway and airway trust funds as well as 
appropriations from the general fund. This funding level is higher than 
the level requested by the President. There are four reasons why this 
bill exceeds the President's request.
  First, the administration's budget--rather than requesting 
appropriated dollars for railroad safety and hazardous materials 
safety--asks us to impose new user fees on the transportation industry.
  Some opponents of this approach have called these proposals ``George 
W. Bush's new taxes.'' The committee bill rejects these new user fees 
and provides the funds necessary for these critical safety functions.
  Second, the bill increases funding for highways above the level 
requested by the President.
  Under the administration's budget, the President launches two new 
initiatives at the expense of highway construction dollars to the 
States. They are the New Freedom Initiative for the disabled and an 
investment in new truck safety inspection stations at the United 
States-Mexico border.
  The bill before you fully funds these two new initiatives. In fact, 
the bill adds $15 million to the level requested by the administration 
for border truck safety activities.
  However, in order to ensure that funding for these initiatives is not 
provided at the expense of highway construction funds in all 50 States, 
the bill increases funding for highways to a level that holds all 
States harmless.
  Under the committee bill, every State will receive more highway 
construction funding than they would receive either under the 
President's budget or under the levels assumed in TEA-21.
  Third, the bill includes a number of small but important safety 
initiatives that were not included in the President's budget.
  Within the Federal Aviation Administration, the bill includes funding 
to hire an additional 221 safety inspectors.
  Following the ValuJet crash in May 1996, the Transportation 
subcommittee has been increasing the inspection work force every year 
in order to get to the level of 3,300 inspectors. That was the minimum 
level identified as necessary by the panel of experts that was convened 
following that crash. It was also the level identified by the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission, which was chaired by now-Secretary 
Norm Mineta.
  While the funds for these additional inspectors were not included in 
the President's budget this year, the bill as approved by the committee 
does provide them.
  In the area of highway safety, the bill includes funds that were not 
requested to boost seat belt use, especially among at-risk populations. 
The Administration has articulated a very aggressive goal to increase 
seat belt use. Unfortunately, when our subcommittee reviewed the 
budget, we found no additional resources were requested to match the 
rhetoric.
  Today, it is a tragic fact that African-American children, ages 5 to 
12, face almost three times the risk of dying in a car crash than white 
children.
  The bill before us includes additional, unrequested funds to tackle 
that problem. The committee has also provided funding above the 
President's request in the area of pipeline safety. I became involved 
in this issue after a tragic liquid pipeline accident that claimed 
three young lives in Bellingham, WA.
  The bill before us provides funding that is $11 million more than the 
level provided last year. Increased funding will be available to boost 
staffing for the Community Right to Know Initiative and other critical 
safety measures.
  I am proud that this bill provides record funding to make pipelines 
safer. It is the right thing to do.
  Finally, the funding in the bill is higher than the administration's 
request due to my insistence that we address chronic staffing, 
training, and equipment shortfalls at the Coast Guard's search and 
rescue stations.
  The bill provides the Coast Guard's operating budget with $45 million 
more than the administration's request in order to address these search 
and rescue deficiencies and fund the mandatory pay and benefit costs 
for our Coast Guard service members.
  Before I close, I would like to turn to the issue of Mexican trucks, 
which is explained in detail on page 85 of the committee report. Here, 
our challenge has been to make sure that commerce can move between our 
two borders while--at the same time--ensuring the safety of all who use 
our highways.
  President Bush requested $88 million to improve the truck safety 
inspection capacity at the United States-Mexico border. Unfortunately, 
the Transportation bill as passed by the House of Representatives does 
not include even one penny for that request.
  The bill before you includes $103 million--$15 million more than the 
level requested by the President--for these border truck safety 
activities.
  The House bill also includes a provision that prohibits the DOT from 
granting any Mexican trucking firm an operating certificate to begin 
the cross-border trucking activity that was anticipated by NAFTA.
  I believe we have found a good compromise that will promote free 
trade and ensure safety on our roads. We crafted a provision based on 
the serious safety risks cited by the inspector general, the General 
Accounting Office, and several state law enforcement authorities.
  Our provision, which is in this bill, is designed to ensure that a 
meaningful safety monitoring and enforcement regime is in place before 
Mexican trucks are allowed to travel anywhere in the United States.
  The provision establishes several enhanced truck safety requirements 
that are intended to ensure that this new

[[Page S7996]]

cross-border truck activity does not pose a safety risk.
  This provision was adopted unanimously by both the Transportation 
Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee.
  My door is always open to Secretary Mineta and the White House, and I 
will of course listen to their concerns. But I believe that my 
provision--as it currently stands--will allow our mutual goals of free 
trade and safe highways to proceed side by side.
  This provision will substantially raise the safety standards that 
will have to be in place before cross-border trucking can begin. I 
believe that this is a far better approach than the one taken by the 
House bill--which has now drawn a veto threat by the administration.
  I want to thank Senator Shelby for all his input into this bill.
  I also want to thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for granting 
our subcommittee an allocation that made it possible to fund the 
important safety initiatives in this bill.
  We could not have done it without their help.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 
2002 Transportation appropriations bill put before the Senate today by 
Senator Murray. I do support the package reported unanimously from the 
Committee on Appropriations and just described by the Senator from 
Washington in pretty good detail.
  There is the first year for the Senator from Washington as 
chairperson of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee. I 
believe she has accounted for herself well on this bill. We have worked 
together. She has put a lot into it, and I believe this is basically a 
balanced bill.
  I believe that every Member can look at this bill and find a great 
deal that they can agree with. But, I also think it is safe to say that 
if you look hard enough, just about everyone can find something they 
would probably disagree with.
  Clearly, that is the case with the Mexican truck issue. I believe 
that everyone in this body is supportive of ensuring the safety of 
trucks on our highways. I believe that many in this body consider the 
approach to Mexican trucks adopted on the House floor as being heavy-
handed, and contrary to the goal of improving the safety of trucks at 
our borders, within the commercial zone, and ultimately, beyond the 
commercial zone on the balance of our Nation's highways.

  Senator Murray has crafted a provision, section 343, that takes a 
different approach. It provides for Mexican truck access to our 
highways beyond the commercial zone once the Department has an adequate 
inspection regime in place and can assure that those carriers and 
trucks meet articulated safety and insurance standards.
  The approach of the Senator from Washington moves the debate on this 
issue forward and allows a resolution of this issue based on safety 
standards rather than prohibiting any action by the Department to 
manage the truck safety issues we face at our southern border under 
NAFTA.
  For my colleagues who would support the House language, some of whom 
may offer a similar provision during consideration of this bill, I 
would point out that provision does little, if anything, to promote 
truck safety on our highways. It may keep some unsafe trucks from 
gaining entry to our country, but it doesn't create a framework or any 
incentive to improve the safety of Mexican trucks. I have to tell you, 
that I am probably less troubled by an outright prohibition than is the 
Senator from Washington. But, I am willing to pursue this issue with 
her through the Senate and to address my colleagues' concerns during 
conference to ensure that traffic beyond the commercial zone is safe.
  To do that, it is incumbent on us to provide the necessary resources 
to begin adequately inspecting motor carriers at the border. I am 
pleased that the bill before us provides a total of $103.2 million to 
enhance safety at the border--$15 million more than the President 
requested. Specifically, the bill includes $13.9 million to hire an 
additional 80 safety inspectors, $18 million for enhanced Motor Carrier 
Safety Grants to border states, and $71.3 million for motor carrier 
safety inspection facilities along the United States-Mexican border.
  That is a quantum leap forward in terms of ensuring safe 
transportation of goods across the border for the benefit of American 
consumers. While we must provide the tools to the Department, we must 
also provide the Department with the flexibility to put forth a policy 
for operations beyond the commercial zones, so long as the policy would 
not undermine the safety of American families on our highways.
  The Murray language does just that. It allows the Department to 
process applications of Mexican-based motor carriers after the 
Department remedies deficiencies highlighted by the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General and after Mexican-domiciled carriers 
meet the strict safety requirements that this bill demands.
  Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens have provided the Transportation 
Subcommittee with a generous allocation, and that has allowed this bill 
to fund the programs and the initiatives that the Senator from 
Washington has just described. I would like to take a few minutes to 
highlight a couple of those items.
  For the Coast Guard, this bill provides $45 million more than the 
President's request for operating expenses--and that is in addition to 
the $92 million that was just agreed to in the supplemental conference 
report for fiscal year 2001. While the Coast Guard isn't overfunded, it 
is not underfunded. The resources are in this bill to continue and grow 
lifesaving, fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, and migrant 
interdiction activities in fiscal year 2002.
  I believe we need to continue vigorous oversight to make sure that 
these dollars get to the Coast Guard districts and to the men and women 
who volunteer to put their lives at risk to save lives, and to meet the 
Coast Guard's other missions. I continue to be concerned about the 
growth in overhead at the headquarters. The increasing costs there are 
troubling.
  I would also like to point out the bill provides the $325.2 million 
for the first year of construction funding for the Coast Guard's 
Integrated Deepwater Project. This funding represents the first 
significant installment of a 20-year, $10 billion Coast Guard program 
to put in place a systems integrator to design, develop, and construct 
new surface ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications equipment--or 
modernize legacy assets--used to conduct operations 50 miles offshore 
and beyond.
  I have serious reservations about the long-term funding prospects of 
this procurement, the inherent schedule and cost risks of the 
acquisition strategy, and with Coast Guard's ability to manage a 
contract of this magnitude and complexity. While I am merely raising 
these concerns now, I intend to discuss them in greater detail later 
during the consideration of this bill in this Senate Chamber.
  The FAA is generously funded in this bill. The funding levels match 
the AIR 21 levels for the FAA's two capital accounts, and the funding 
for FAA operations exceeds the President's budget request. While the 
cost efficiencies from the controller agreement have yet to show up in 
the operations account, and there continue to be significant slippages 
and cost escalations in several of the FAA procurement programs that 
are critical to modernization of the National Airspace System, the bill 
before the Senate provides badly needed funding to continue the 
operations and to support an aggressive modernization program.

  Accordingly, the committee-reported bill also more than meets the 
TEA-21 highway and transit funding levels and increases the obligation 
limitation for highways and provides additional resources for transit 
new start systems. This funding commitment by the committee bill 
recognizes the priorities on these accounts reflected in the requests 
from Members of the Senate. I commend the Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, for her attention to the interests of the Department and the 
Senate in constructing the package before the Senate today.
  While the bill commits a fair amount of funding for the Appalachian 
Development Highway System, I would note that a great deal more funding 
is required to complete the commitment that has been made to this 
system. The

[[Page S7997]]

ADH system is far less complete than the National Highway System and 
many years at these funding levels will be required to improve some of 
the most deficient and dangerous segments of the rural highway system 
in all of America.
  The bill provides $521 million for Amtrak and authorizes the railroad 
to immediately use all of these funds in one fiscal year. For the past 
several years, the bill has limited Amtrak to using 40 percent of its 
funding in the first year so the balance would be available for the 
next. Keep in mind that this money is appropriated for capital 
activities and investments, so the provision and anticipation that it 
would all spend out is unusual in and by itself. My sense is that this 
extraordinary action is at best a short-term solution.
  Amtrak, as a lot of you know, is engaging in short-term borrowing to 
cover operational and debt service costs and Amtrak's cash shortfall is 
growing to unsustainable levels. Allowing the cash-starved Amtrak to 
spend its entire appropriation for fiscal year 2002 will allow, 
however, Amtrak to squeak through to the Spring of 2002, when this 
failed experiment, I believe, will again be out of money.
  I hope that we can move this legislation quickly through the Senate 
and through the conference. During Senate consideration of the 
Transportation appropriations bill, I will cover some of these issues 
in more detail, as will Senator Murray. But I look forward to working 
with the Senator from Washington, the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations, and with interested Members to 
consider and pass this legislation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the committee for 
including the $5 million grant for the Eighth Paralympiad for the 
Disabled cited in this bill. This funding is for the 2002 Paralympic 
Games not the 2002 Olympic Games. It is important to remember that 
while the Paralympics are being held in conjunction with the Olympics 
in Salt Lake City, all the funding for the Paralympic Games has been 
very carefully and very clearly separated from that for the Olympics. 
This funding will be spent only for Paralympic costs and includes both 
Federal and private sources of funding.
  This funding supports the disabled athletes who compete at Olympic 
levels. These elite disabled athletes deliver amazing performances that 
are wonderful to behold. For example, they ski with one leg or they ski 
blind. We ask them to perform on Olympic courses, at Olympic levels, 
and finish in times within Olympic ranges.
  The Paralympics and Special Olympics are events our country 
traditionally recognizes as important priorities. That is, to encourage 
the development of sports among special populations. Moreover, it has 
been an advantage to have the Olympic Committee, for the first time, 
host the Paralympic Games. This ensures that the Paralympic athletes 
are recognized as Olympic level competitors and ensures they are 
treated as Olympians. It also allows for synergy in developing 
operational plans thus making the Paralympics far more efficient.
  Note that the Paralympic's association with the Olympic Committee has 
brought yet another benefit. The Federal funding for these Paralympic 
games is far less than ever before. For the benefit of my colleagues, 
let me put this issue in perspective. These games will cost 
approximately $80 million. The Atlanta Paralympics were also about $80 
million. But there the comparison ends. In Atlanta, $32 million were 
funded by the Federal Government. In the Salt Lake Paralympics, Federal 
funding will only be $10 million.
  Why are the Salt Lake City Paralympics requesting far less Federal 
funding than the Atlanta Paralympics? The Salt Lake Olympic Committee 
is paying $40 million of the costs and raising another $30 million from 
private sources. The Atlanta Olympic Committee paid $15 million and 
raised $33 million for the Paralympics. Because the Salt Lake Olympic 
Committee is contributing more to the Paralympics, the amount of 
Federal funding has been reduced from $32 million for the Atlanta games 
to $10 million for the Salt Lake games. And, this bill only asks for $5 
million for transportation while the Atlanta transportation cost to the 
Federal Government was $5.6 million.
  This is a wise use of Federal funds. The $5 million requested for the 
Paralympics are well justified. Additionally, these costs are most 
reasonable when compared to the Atlanta games and given the careful 
financial management on the part of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic 
Committee.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Washington.


                Amendment No. 1029 to Amendment No. 1025

  Mrs. MURRAY. I send a technical amendment to the desk that has been 
approved by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and 
     Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 1029.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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:

       On page 20, line 16, strike the numeral and all that 
     follows through the word ``Code'' on page 18 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``$3,348,128 shall be set aside 
     for the program authorized under section 1101(a)(11) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended 
     and section 162 of title 23, United States Code;''
       On page 33, line 12, strike the word ``together'' and all 
     that follows through the semi-colon on line 14.
       On page 78, strike line 20 through 24.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1029.
  The amendment (No. 1029) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1030 to Amendment No. 1029

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and 
     Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 1030.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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:

  (Purpose: To enhance the inspection requirements for Mexican motor 
carriers seeking to operate in the United States and to require them to 
                            display decals)

       On page 73, strike lines 19 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(E) requires--
       ``(i) inspections of all commercial vehicles of Mexican 
     motor carriers authorized, or seeking authority, to operate 
     beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on 
     the United States-Mexico border that do not display a valid 
     Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection decal, by 
     certified Federal inspectors, or by State inspectors whose 
     operations are funded in part or in whole by Federal funds, 
     in accordance with the requirements for a Level I Inspection 
     under the criteria of the North American Standard Inspection 
     (as defined in section 350.105 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations), including examination of the driver, vehicle 
     exterior and vehicle under-carriage, and
       ``(ii) a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance decal to be 
     affixed to each such commercial vehicle upon completion of 
     the inspection required by clause (i) or a re-inspection if 
     the vehicle has met the criteria for the Level I inspection 
     when no component parts were hidden from view and no evidence 
     of a defect was present, and
       ``(iii) that any such decal, when affixed, expire at the 
     end of a period of not more than 90 days, but

     nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude the 
     Administration from requiring re-inspection of a vehicle 
     bearing a valid inspection decal or from requiring that such 
     a decal be removed when a certified Federal or State 
     inspector determines that such a vehicle has a safety 
     violation subsequent to the inspection for which the decal 
     was granted;''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment, I have sent to the desk 
is offered by Senator Shelby and myself and it will strengthen the 
truck safety provisions in the bill as reported by the committee.
  It will require the Department of Transportation to implement a 
rigorous inspection regime under which every Mexican truck seeking to 
travel beyond the commercial zone will be required to be inspected at 
least every 90 days.
  This inspection system has shown some level of success within the 
State

[[Page S7998]]

of California in bringing down the high level of safety noncompliance 
that has been found in Mexican trucks seeking to cross the border.
  We believe that his would improve upon the provisions already in 
place in the bill as reported by the committee.
  I know that Senators McCain and Gramm have an interest in these 
provisions. In deference to them, I will not seek adoption of the 
amendment at this time. I will leave it as the pending amendment to the 
bill.
  If need be, we can temporarily lay the amendment aside and take up 
amendments on other matters as debate occurs on this bill.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama suggests the absence 
of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________