[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12331-S12340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.N O T I C E
Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page S12332]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002--CONFERENCE REPORT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to the consideration of the conference report
accompanying H.R. 2299, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the 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,'' having
met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate and the House agree to the
same, with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both
Houses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record on November 29, 2001.)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under a previous order, there will
now be 60 minutes for debate.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to bring before the Senate the
conference report accompanying the Transportation appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2002.
This conference agreement represents many weeks of negotiations with
the House and the administration, and I am proud of the progress it
will bring to our Nation's transportation system.
This conference agreement has already passed the House by an
overwhelming margin of 371-11.
In total, the bill includes appropriations and obligation limitations
totaling roughly $59.6 billion.
While that is about $1.5 billion more than the fiscal year 2001
level, it is approximately $400 million less than the amount passed by
the Senate on August 1.
It was very difficult to pare $400 million out of the Senate bill,
but we did so while carefully looking out for the needs of all of the
critical agencies within the Department of Transportation as well as
the Members' individual priorities.
The conference agreement provides funding levels that are equal to or
higher than the operating accounts for agencies such as the Coast
Guard, the FAA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Several important safety initiatives--that were included in the
Senate bill--have been maintained, including: the hiring of new
aviation safety and security inspectors, improvements to the Coast
Guard's struggling search and rescue mission, and additional funding to
increase seat belt use across the nation.
The bill before us also includes a full $1.25 billion in funding to
launch the transportation security act, which is the aviation security
bill that was enacted just a few days ago.
The act required that the revenues from its user fees be appropriated
before becoming available.
The security act includes many strict deadlines for the improvement
of our aviation security system.
And we expect the DOT to meet those deadlines.
That is why we worked hard to get the $1.25 billion in user fees into
the hands of the Transportation Secretary in this bill as soon as
possible--rather than wait for the Defense supplemental.
For highways, our bill includes $100 million more than the amount
guaranteed under TEA-21.
The bill also fully funds the levels authorized under AIR-21 for the
FAA's air traffic control improvements and airport grants.
When the Senate considered this bill, we spent a lot of time debating
the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United States.
While the conference agreement provides the administration
flexibility in implementation, it carefully follows the safety
provisions of the bill that passed the Senate in August.
The safety requirements in this bill are considerably stronger than
anything the administration had proposed, and anything that was
presented to the Senate as an alternative during our debate this past
summer.
Let me mention quickly just a few of the safety provisions in the
bill.
Licenses will be checked for every driver transporting hazardous
materials and for at least half of all other Mexican truck drivers
every time they cross the border.
Mexican trucks will undergo rigorous inspections before they are
allowed full access to our highways, and they will be reinspected every
90 days.
And trucking firms will need to demonstrate that they have a drug and
alcohol testing program, proof of insurance, and drivers who have clean
driving records before the first truck crosses the border.
There are many people to thank for their contributions to this bill.
The former chairman of the subcommittee and now its ranking member,
Senator Shelby has been a stalwart ally and regular contributor to our
efforts.
Congressman Rogers, the chairman of the House subcommittee is not
only an outstanding chairman, he is a true Kentucky gentleman as well.
I also want to thank Representative Sabo of Minnesota, the ranking
member of the House subcommittee, whose leadership on the Mexican truck
issue was essential to our getting an outstanding safety regimen in
place.
As always, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for their
assistance throughout the process.
I also thank the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittee
staffs--along with some members of my personal staff who have worked a
great many hours to bring together this conference agreement,
including:
On the Senate subcommittee on Transportation appropriations, for the
majority: Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, Cynthia Stowe, and Angela Lee;
For the minority: Wally Burnett Paul Doerrer, and Candice Rogers,
On the House subcommittee on Transportation appropriations, for the
majority: Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Cheryle Tucker, Linda Muir, and
Theresa Kohler;
For the minority: Bev Pheto;
On the chairman personal staff, Rich Desimone and Dale Learn;
On the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Debbie
Hersman.
I thank all these people who spent a lot of time helping us to get to
this point. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I yield myself as much time as I
consume.
I rise in support of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation
appropriations conference report before the Senate this morning. While
I do not support every item, policy, program, or initiative in the
conference report or statement of managers, I do support the package
reported overwhelmingly from the conference committee and as just
described by the Senator from Washington.
This is the first year the Senator from Washington is chair of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I believe that she has
accounted herself well on this bill. This is a balanced bill.
Clearly, the Mexican truck issue reflects that balanced approach. I
believe that the Senator from Washington did an admirable job of
managing this issue through a lengthy debate on the Senate floor and
through the conference committee negotiations with the House and the
administration.
The resolution of the Mexican truck issue allows for the safe opening
of the border to Mexican trucks with appropriate inspections,
oversight, and audits of Mexican-domiciled trucks and trucking
companies. This compromise kept the focus on truck safety and security
at our border and never lost sight of the need to work with the
administration and the House to forge a workable solution.
Our approach on this issue was always to move the debate forward and
allow a resolution based on safety standards rather than prohibiting
any action by the department to manage the truck safety issues we face
at our southern border. I think the conference report treatment of this
matter meets that test.
The FAA, the Coast Guard, and the Department's new Transportation
Security Agency are all adequately, if not
[[Page S12333]]
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 meets the President's budget request.
Accordingly, the conference report meets the TEA 21 transit funding
levels and increases the obligation limitation for highways above the
TEA 21 firewalled levels. This funding commitment recognizes the
priorities our colleagues in the Senate place on these accounts.
This is not only the first year of the Senator from Washington as the
chair of this subcommittee, it is also the first year that Peter Rogoff
has assisted her on the bill as the majority clerk. The committee and
the Senator from Washington were both well served by Peter Rogoff--and
his staff, Kate Hallahan, and Coast Guard Commander Cyndi Stowe.
I also commend Wally Burnett and Paul Doerrer of my staff on the
committee. They worked hand in hand with the Democrats. I believe that
is why we are where we are today, on the verge of adopting this
conference report.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report and send
it to the President for his signature, with the type of overwhelming
margin we saw in the other body of a 371-to-11 vote on the adoption of
this report.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has now turned to consideration
of the conference report accompanying the Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The bill includes a
combination of appropriations and obligation limitations totaling
$59.643 billion. That is $1.526 billion or 2.6 percent higher than the
level provided for fiscal year 2001.
This is the ninth of the thirteen appropriations conference reports
to come before the Senate. It is the ninth conference report that is
within its 302 (B) allocation and it is fully consistent with the $686
billion bipartisan budget agreement on discretionary spending for the
thirteen bills.
When the President signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, he placed into law a provision I and my colleague from Texas,
Senator Gramm, championed here in the Senate. That provision served to
guarantee that we appropriate every year on our Nation's highway system
the funds that are received into the Highway Trust Fund through fuel
taxes at the pump. I'm pleased to say that this year's Transportation
bill, like every Transportation bill enacted since TEA-21, honors that
commitment. Indeed, this year, for the first time since 1998, the
Transportation bill provides more money for highways than was assumed
in the highway guarantee--$100 million more. This is made possible
since we still have an unobligated balance in the trust fund that
existed before TEA-21 was enacted. So I commend the managers of the
bill, Senators Murray and Shelby, for making this significant
investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure which is very much in
need of repair, restoration, and expansion.
As long as I have had the pleasure of serving on the Transportation
Subcommittee, it has always operated in an open and bipartisan manner.
I am pleased to see that this tradition has continued under the
leadership of Senator Murray. She and Senator Shelby have cooperated on
all aspects of this bill. Both of them were required to take on the
very contentious issue regarding the safety risks of Mexican trucks
traveling on our highways. We debated that issue for several days here
in the Senate and took a total of three cloture votes during that
debate. Senators Murray and Shelby stood their ground on the floor of
the Senate and they prevailed. They then went to conference and
negotiated a compromise with the House that maintains the strong safety
requirements passed by the Senate but eliminates the threat of a veto
against this bill.
I commend both managers and their respective staffs for a job well
done and I encourage all members to support the conference report.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern regarding
an element on the Fiscal Year 2002 Transportation Appropriation
Conference Report. While I believe that this report, for the most part,
spends funding according to statute and aids our Nation's
transportation system, I am very concerned about the distribution of a
major funding category.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA 21, was
passed by the Congress in 1998 by overwhelming margins. For the first
time receipts into the Highway Trust Fund were guaranteed to be spent
for transportation purposes. This is accomplished through the annual
calculation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, RABA, which makes
adjustments in obligations to compensate for actual receipts into the
Trust Fund versus the estimated authorization included in TEA 21 for
the fiscal year.
While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has upheld the
firewalls in this conference report, I find the redistribution of RABA
funds to be unacceptable. Under TEA 21, RABA funds are to be
distributed proportionately to the States through formula
apportionments and also to allocated programs. This conference report
is a radical departure from that and is a cause for great concern.
States receive less money in this conference report than is called for
under TEA 21. For that reason, this conference report is in violation
of TEA 21.
I am dismayed to have to voice my concern regarding an otherwise
beneficial transportation bill. However, as an author of TEA 21 and a
believer in its principles, I am saddened to see TEA 21 violated at the
expense of the States.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the
transportation appropriations conference report.
First, I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee members for
their determination to protect our highways from unsafe Mexican trucks.
I am not eager for trucks to freely cross from Mexico into the United
States, for many reasons, but I am pleased that these trucks will at
least be required to pass a safety compliance review.
The remainder of my comments have to do with the portion of the
conference report that funds the Federal-aid highway program.
As the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
with authorizing jurisdiction over the highway program, I am pleased
with the overall funding level for Federal-aid highways.
As my colleagues will recall, one of the major accomplishments of
TEA-21, passed by Congress in 1998, was that for the first time, gas
tax revenues into the Highway Trust Funds were guaranteed to be
promptly returned to the States for transportation spending.
This guarantee is accomplished with a provision in TEA-21 called
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA as it is known.
RABA calculations compare actual gas tax receipts to our 1998
estimates, and guaranteed funding will go up or down depending on
whether we have more or less revenue in the Highway Trust Fund than
TEA-21 anticipated.
Reflecting several years of a strong economy, gas tax receipts have
been billions of dollars more than we anticipated in 1998.
This year, as guaranteed by TEA-21, the Federal-aid highway program
is funded at almost $33 billion ($32.954 billion); an increase of about
$1.2 billion over last year; which includes $4.5 billion from RABA
funds.
As I said, I am pleased with the success of these funding guarantees.
But I am concerned about the diversion of over $1.5 billion to
project earmarks instead of being distributed fairly under formulas
developed in TEA-21.
There are 590 project earmarks from the Highway Trust Fund, and 55
more highway projects taken from the general fund.
I want to alert my colleagues to such extensive earmarking contained
in this appropriations report.
This earmarking is mostly within discretionary programs created in
TEA-21 and mostly funded with the RABA funds.
Almost a billion dollars in RABA funds are diverted away from the
fair distribution that we agreed to in TEA-21, and are used for
earmarks in this conference report.
This money does not get distributed evenly as authorized in TEA-21,
but there are winners and losers.
Some States get a lot of this money for projects, some get very
little.
[[Page S12334]]
This process completely distorts the funding formulas we agreed to in
TEA-21.
It also distorts the discretionary programs we created in TEA-21 for
projects that meet specified criteria.
For instance, one pilot program we created to fund local projects
that link transportation and community needs, for instance, was
authorized in TEA-21 at $25 million per year.
This year, that program has become the catch-all for project
earmarks, with a total of 219 projects at a cost of $276 million.
This is incredible that a small discretionary program has grown to an
earmarking account at over 10 times the authorized amount.
The Appropriations Committee began earmarking these TEA-21 accounts a
few years ago, over strong objections from the authorizing committees,
and the practice has grown exponentially each year.
Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has begun the practice of
soliciting project requests, creating a terrible dilemma where the
number of projects that Members submit far exceed any authorized
amounts.
And now Members have no choice but to compete for these discretionary
funds in the appropriations process.
I admit to requesting projects for my State that received funding
only because the pot of money grew so large, again from $25 million to
$276 million.
The Appropriations Committee has gone further now than in recent
years toward making so many transportation project funding decisions.
I believe strongly that State and local agencies are responsible for
transportation planning and funding decisions.
I much prefer to send Highway Trust Fund dollars back to the States
and I do not think Congress should pick and choose projects.
Where any fault for this situation rests with the framework in TEA-
21, we will address it in the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Next year the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin
hearings on reauthorization, and I know that there is a lot of concern
about this earmarking process.
I will vote in favor of this conference report for the good it
contains, but I am compelled to register my strong objections to the
hundreds of highway projects that do not belong in an appropriations
bill.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take a moment while the
transportation appropriations conference report is pending before us to
express my concern, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which
has jurisdiction over the Federal transit laws, about a provision in
that report that attempts by report language to rewrite established law
by reducing the Federal match for New Start transit projects from 80
percent to 60 percent. I am referring to language in the conference
report that would ``direct [the Federal Transit Administration] not to
sign any new full funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002
that have a maximum federal share of higher than 60 percent.'' The
Senate Banking Committee will begin to consider transit reauthorization
issues next year. In the meantime, we have not had the benefit of any
hearings or other public debate on this issue that would justify such
report language.
Over 200 communities around the country, in urban, suburban, and
rural areas, are considering light rail or other fixed guideway transit
investments to meet their growing transportation needs. Recognizing
this increasing demand, Congress in 1998 passed the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, which authorized almost $8.2 billion
over 6 years to fund these New Starts projects.
The process for evaluating and awarding a Federal grant under the New
Starts program is laid out in the Federal transit laws, found in
section 5309 of Title 49, United States Code. Section 5309(h) specifies
that ``[a Federal] grant for [a New Starts] project is for 80 percent
of the net project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower
grant percentage.'' By including language in the conference report--not
in the statute--directing the FTA not to sign new full funding grant
agreements after September 30, 2002 with a Federal share greater than
60 percent, the conferees are seeking to direct the FTA to act contrary
to existing law.
Efforts to alter the Federal share would disrupt the level playing
field established when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act--ISTEA--set forth the 80 percent Federal cap for both highway and
transit projects. ISTEA created a funding system by which communities
could choose between transportation modes based on local needs, not
based on the amount of Federal money available for the project. Seeking
to lower the Federal match for transit projects while keeping the
available highway match at 80 percent has the potential to skew the
dynamics of choice for local communities.
It is true that there is very strong demand for New Starts funding.
This is an issue which will be thoroughly considered as the transit
laws are reauthorized in less than two years' time. Given the
importance of the New Starts program to communities around the country,
any proposal for dealing with this issue should be thoroughly
considered. Report language directions to the FTA to act contrary to
existing law are not a constructive contribution to this thorough
consideration.
bus replacement
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the conference report indicates that $5
million is provided for bus replacement in Iowa. But, it is my
understanding that the intent was to allow these funds which have been
allocated in a collaborative process involving the Iowa DOT and the
local transit authorities to be used for bus replacement, bus expansion
and for facility and equipment costs.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa is correct
regarding the allocation of these funds. The intention is that the
funds may be used for the authorized purposes that you noted.
funding of transportation security improvement measures
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I say to Senator Murray, I would like to confirm my
understanding that between the funding you have included in the
conference report for the Transportation Security Administration and
the funding included in the bill for the Federal Aviation
Administration's research, engineering and development, there are
sufficient funds for the expanded use of existing technology and
research and development of new technology to improve aviation
security. Is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. The funds appropriated are
intended to cover those costs.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator to ask the time be equally divided and
request he retain the remainder of the time of the chairman and ranking
member toward the end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, for the information of all Members, the
majority leader has indicated that the vote on this matter will occur
at 12:30 today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the quorum call
will be charged as previously specified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time am I allowed?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I shall not take all 8 minutes. I
understand there is a long line of people
[[Page S12335]]
wishing to speak on this conference report later.
First of all, I compliment the chairman and ranking member from the
Senate side. I think they have done an extraordinary job on the
conference report. I appreciate the work they have done on a range of
issues. I think the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude.
I could spend some long period of time talking about the important
provisions in this Transportation conference report. I know it took a
long while to get to this point. Senator Murray, chairing the
subcommittee on the Senate side, and others who have worked on this
bill for some length of time undoubtedly wish this had been completed
much earlier, but there were a series of things that prevented it from
happening. In any event, at the end of this session we have a
conference report that contains a lot of important items for this
country's transportation system. I compliment Senator Shelby and
Senator Murray and thank them for their work.
I do want to say--and I will say it briefly--there are two items in
the conference report that provide some heartburn for me. The
conference was required--or forced, I guess--to accept a provision
dealing with the spending of $400,000 to put airport signs up that
describe National Airport really as Reagan National Airport. This
conference report, because the House insisted, requires the Metro
Airport Authority to spend $400,000 changing signs so that people will
not be confused that they are at the airport when, in fact, the signs
now say ``National Airport.''
George Will had a little something to say about that in a piece in
April of this year. He said:
Travelers too oblivious to know they are at an airport,
when large, clear signs say they are, should be given those
little plastic pilot wings that are issued to unaccompanied
children taken into protective custody. The conservatives
want to get Congress to order Metro officials to spend
several thousand dollars to add Reagan's name to the station
signs and all references to the station on the maps.
He is talking about the station at the Metro stop.
He said:
Reagan had a memorable thing or two to say about bossy
Federal institutions meddling in local affairs.
I want to make the point that the House of Representatives has
insisted on this for some long while. I regret they forced their will
into this conference. I think it is a waste of $400,000 that probably
could have better been used, if the House had thought clearly about
this, for security.
We have a range of security needs, given post-September 11, on a
range of transportation systems. I would have much rather seen, if the
$400,000 is to be spent, that it be spent on Metro security. I know the
Senators from Washington and Alabama share my concern about that.
Let me make one additional point, and that is on the issue of Mexican
trucks. The House of Representatives had a provision that actually
prohibited the Mexican trucks from coming into this country beyond the
20-mile limit. The Senate provision was not as strong but was a pretty
good provision. I would have preferred a stronger provision. The
provision that came out of conference is weaker than both.
I understand the work that Senator Murray and Senator Shelby did. I
am not here to criticize their work. I respect the work they did in
conference to try to resolve this issue. They make the point--and it is
an accurate point--that this is a restriction on funding for 1 year
during the appropriations year. So this issue will not be concluded
with this judgment in this conference committee. This issue will be a
part of the interests of the authorizing committee, oversight by this
subcommittee, and also will be a part of the interest of others of us
in the Congress who still believe it will be unsafe to have any
wholesale movement of Mexican trucks beyond the 20-mile border limit.
It is interesting to me that we now have a limitation on the movement
of Mexican trucks in this country, and yet Mexican truck drivers with
Mexican trucks have been apprehended in North Dakota, which, of course,
is significantly beyond the 20-mile limit from the Mexican border. And
it is true they have been apprehended in a good many other States as
well.
We have a lot of difficulties, problems, and concerns trying to merge
two different kinds of economies with respect to transportation, two
different kinds of systems dealing with short- and long-haul trucks,
and two different safety standards, different standards with respect to
both drivers and trucks.
I wish we had in fact had the House position, which originally came
to conference with a prohibition until adequate safety standards were
in place and adequate inspection opportunities were in place. That,
regrettably, is not the case. And I am not here to suggest that our two
Senators--Senator Murray and Senator Shelby--in any way weakened this
provision. I am here to say the conference itself forced that
weakening. I think that will not and cannot be the last word on this
subject. Those on the authorizing committee and those of us who will
return to this subject in the appropriations process next year will
have more to say.
But having spoken on both of those issues, let me again say to my
colleague, Senator Murray, and my colleague, Senator Shelby, they
operate in good faith and do an extraordinary job. They run a
subcommittee that is very important to this country, especially again
in relation to post-September 11, the issue of transportation, the
security of our transportation systems in the country.
Our transportation industry is so important to this country's
economy. There is no way you can overstate it. The appropriations bill
offered to us today by Senators Murray and Shelby is an appropriations
bill that I think the Senate will want to approve. This conference
report will get the Senate's approval today.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator will withhold, the
Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time be
divided as before.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand under the UC I have 15
minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been reduced by a series of
quorum calls. The Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Six minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be
granted 4 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong opposition to
the conference agreement on H.R. 2299, the fiscal year 2002
Transportation appropriations bill approved by the House and Senate
conferees last week.
I once again find myself in a position in which I must express strong
concerns with yet another appropriations bill. This measure, like the
eight appropriations bills approved by the Congress this year and like
so often has been the case during recent years, continues what I
believe is an inappropriate overreach by the appropriators in an effort
to fulfill their own agendas at the expense of both current law and the
work of the authorizers.
They again are redirecting programmatic funding, funding that in many
cases is authorized to be distributed by formula or at the discretion
of the Secretary and based on competitive merit.
Instead of allowing the normal funding distribution process to go
forward, the appropriators have earmarked that funding for pet projects
for the members of the Appropriations Committee.
Before citing a host of examples of the pork barrel spending
associated with this conference report, I want to first address the
very important trade issue that the appropriators have tied to the
pending measure, that is, the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA.
As my colleagues well know, provisions in both the House and the
Senate versions of the Transportation appropriations bill proposed to
restrict the
[[Page S12336]]
administration's ability to abide by our obligations under NAFTA. As a
result of this fact, the Statement of Administrative Policy included a
very clear and direct veto threat stating that ``the Senate Committee
has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate
our commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate
bill, the President's senior advisors will recommend that the President
veto the bill.''
Several of us also strongly objected to the appropriators' actions.
As a result, we spent considerable floor time--nearly two full weeks in
July--discussing the importance of NAFTA and our obligation to abide by
our commitments to our trading partners.
At no time has the senior Senator from Texas or I argued that safety
concerns were not of considerable importance in this debate. In fact,
it was our proposal offered as an alternative to the Senate version
that first called for an inspection of every Mexican truck similar to
the model used in the State of California at the border.
Indeed, the proponents of NAFTA have had one goal since this issue
surfaced in the DOT appropriations legislation this summer. From the
beginning, our goal has been to ensure the appropriators did not
succeed in their attempts through the DOT appropriations bill to
effectively alter our solemn agreement with our neighbors to the South.
If our trading partners are subject to the whimsical mood of the
appropriators, how can we ever expect any nation that we have executed
a trade agreement with, or one we are seeking to enter into trade
agreements with, to have any faith that our word is true and we will
abide by our agreements? If the appropriators' agenda had prevailed, I
shudder to consider the consequences and the impact as we attempted to
seek to negotiate new trade agreements or renewed ones.
After receiving assurances from the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee that he would work with the administration to
ensure the conference agreement would not include any provisions that
would prevent use from abiding by our NAFTA commitments, the senior
Senator from Texas and I agreed to forgo some of our procedural rights
and allowed the bill to go to conference without several additional
votes and the expenditure of additional floor time. While early into
the conference the Senate managers of the bill issued a release
indicating a determination to provoke a Presidential veto, the
appropriators finally agreed last week to incorporate provisions
agreeable to the administration.
Upon hearing of the agreement with respect to Mexican trucks last
week, I raised reservations over some of the provisions that I felt
could be troublesome. However, in response to these concerns, the
administration has assured us the agreement is not in violation of
NAFTA. Last Friday, November 30, the White House issued the following
statement of the President:
The compromise reached by the House and Senate
appropriators on Mexican trucking is an important victory for
safety and free trade. We must promote the highest level of
safety and security on American highways while meeting our
commitments to our friends to the South. The compromise
reached by the conferees will achieve these twin objectives
by permitting our border to be opened in a timely manner and
ensuring that all United States safety standards will be
applied to every truck and bus operating on our highways.
Moreover, I have received a letter from U.S. Trade Representative,
Robert Zoellick, which states:
The Administration supports the agreement reached by the
House and Senate appropriators on Mexican trucking as fully
promoting highway safety and U.S. trade commitments. In
addition, it will permit the United States to meet the
commitments made to Mexico as part of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
I ask unanimous consent a copy of that letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, The United States
Trade Representative,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to convey the
Administration's views on Section 350 of H.R. 2299, the
Department of Transportation's appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2002.
The Administration supports the agreement reached by the
House and Senate appropriators on Mexican trucking as fully
promoting highway safety and U.S. trade commitments. In
addition, it will permit the United States to meet the
commitments made to Mexico as part of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Zoellick.
Mr. McCAIN. Additionally, I note the conference report does include
additional funding to address the many safety related enforcement
requirements concerning Mexican carriers and drivers. While much of my
statement today will express disagreement to the actions of the
appropriators, in this case I want to note for the record that they
have worked to provide sufficient funding to allow DOT to carry out the
requirements with respect to the Mexican trucking issue and enable the
border to be opened in a time-frame deemed appropriate by the
administration.
Mr. President, enactment of this legislation will not be the end of
our due-diligence to ensure we are allowed to open the border to
Mexican carriers and in turn, allow American carriers to do business in
Mexico. I intend to stay vigilant on this very important issue and will
monitor the administration's actions with respect to the border opening
in my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. I remain committed to doing all I can to
ensure the border is open consistent with our obligations under NAFTA
while protecting the safety of the American traveling public.
Mr. President, this is a bittersweet victory for highway safety and
free trade. On the one hand the United States will be allowed to keep
its promise to abide by its solemn treaty. Yet on the other hand, the
egregious process of pork barrel earmarking continues. Unless you are
from a state with a member on the Appropriations Committee, your
State's transportation dollars most likely will be reduced by enactment
of this bill which in many cases redirects authorized funding programs
for the sake of the home-state projects of the appropriators.
I recognize that there are very important provisions in the
legislation, sections that appropriate funds for programs vital to the
safety and security of the traveling public and our national
transportation system over all. Yet despite that necessary funding, and
the fact that the legislation is not in violation of NAFTA, it once
again goes overboard on pork barrel spending.
It is so bad, in fact, yesterday's Wall Street Journal included an
article highlighting the very egregious actions of the appropriators to
reduce state transportation dollars and direct those funds to earmarked
projects. The article is entitled ``Bill Gains To Cut State-Controlled
Highway Funds.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bill Gains To Cut State-Controlled Highway Funds
(By David Rogers)
Washington.--In a total display of patronage politics,
Congress is poised to remove nearly $450 million of federal
highway aid from state control to instead spend the money on
road projects selected by lawmakers.
The appropriations leadership added the provision to a
$59.6 billion transportation budget for fiscal-year 2002 that
was filed just before dawn Friday and rushed through the
House hours later, where it passed 371-11. Tight limits on
Senate debate all but ensure final passage this week, despite
complaints that lawmakers are tampering with funding formulas
laid out in the 1998 highway act.
Until the dust settles, it is difficult to say precisely
how individual states will fare, but three--Kentucky,
Alabama, and West Virginia--are clear winners. Rep. Hal
Rogers (R., Ky), who led the House negotiators, engineered
the arrangement and used it to corral extra dollars for his
state. Alabama had three votes at the negotiating table,
including Sen. Richard Shelby, the Senate's top GOP
negotiator. West Virginia needed only one, Sen. Robert Byrd,
chairman of the Appropriations panel and a master at
capturing highway money for his rural state. Among the four
largest earmarked highway accounts, Kentucky, West Virginia
and Alabama are promised $211 million, almost a fifth of the
$1.1 billion total.
Never before has the Appropriations leadership gone so far
in tampering with the 1998 highway act, which was built on
the premise that federal gas-tax receipts should be returned
quickly to the states regardless of other federal spending
priorities. The act
[[Page S12337]]
even created a mechanism to adjust authorized highway
funding upward as revenue rose. In recent years, that pot of
money--identified by the title Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority, or RABA--has exploded, reaching $4.5 billion this
year.
Under the highway law, $3.95 billion was to be apportioned
among the states this year with the remaining $574 million
going to about 40 highway programs authorized in the highway
act and administered through the Transportation Department.
The bill would cut the state share to $3.5 billion and
combine the extra $450 million with the $574 million,
creating a $1 billion-plus pot.
The negotiators made wholesale changes in the priorities
set in the highway act, substituting projects they favor for
the ones preferred by the House and Senate transportation
committees that wrote the highway law. A $25 million
community-preservation pilot program, for example, ballooned
to $276 million, with virtually each dollar earmarked as to
where it should be spent.
The Bush administration had opened the door by proposing
changes in how RABA dollars are distributed. Negotiators said
the $3.5 billion apportioned to the states narrowly exceeds
the amount proposed in the president's budget, and an
additional $100 million has been added elsewhere to core
highway funds available to the states. There is little doubt
the deal was driven by pork-barrel politics. There were
bitter fights over unsuccessful Republican attempts to deny
money for vulnerable Democrats in conservative House
districts in Mississippi and Arkansas.
The bill would impose a much tougher safety regimen than
the White House had wanted for Mexican trucks that are due to
begin operating in the U.S. next year. The Transportation
Department expects to meet the requirements and open the
border by the spring--just a few months later than planned.
But the final settlement is a personal victory for Rep.
Martin Salo (D., Minn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D. Wash.), the
two managers of the bill who had insisted lawmakers must
consider safety.
For Sen. Byrd, there will be more at stake than the
transportation bill. The West Virginia Democrat will be at
center stage again this week, which he is expected to force
Senate roll calls on adding more money for homeland security
to a pending Pentagon budget. Though the White House should
win an early procedural vote, Sen. Byrd appears prepared to
confront Republicans with the choice of accepting the money
or pulling down the entire military budget.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, how much longer are
we going to let the appropriators subordinate the jurisdiction and
responsibilities of the authorizers? Didn't most of us think the multi-
year highway funding legislation, known as TEA-21, would essentially be
the law of the land through fiscal year 2003 with respect to highway
funding formulas and state apportionments? I guess we were wrong, given
the appropriations reprogramming maneuvers.
Let me again quote from the Wall Street Journal: ``The negotiators
made wholesale changes in the priorities set in the highway act,
substituting projects they favor for the ones preferred by the House
and Senate transportation committees that wrote the highway law.'' This
is precisely why no projects should be earmarked by either the
authorizers or the appropriators and we should instead allow the states
to fund the projects that meet the legitimate transportation needs of
their states.
Mr. President, the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--RABA--funds
mentioned in the article are to be distributed proportionately to the
states through formula apportionments and to allocated programs. This
conference report represents a fundamental departure from that
approach.
To pay for some of the report's many earmarks, $423 million will be
redirected from state apportionments, meaning the states lose 10.7
percent of RABA funds from the regular formula program. Further,
another $423 million will be redistributed from allocated programs in a
manner in which the appropriators have selected programmatic winners
and losers. In fact, 24 of 38 highway funding programs will receive
none of the funding under RABA they were to receive before the
appropriators' stroke of pen. But again, if you have the good fortune
to reside in a state with a member in a leadership position on the DOT
Appropriations Subcommittee, you are among the winners in this
appropriations bill lottery. I ask unanimous consent that two charts
prepared by the Federal Highway Administration to show the impact on
each state and the allocated programs through the RABA redistributing
work of the appropriators be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--ESTIMATED RABA DISTRIBUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway programs TEA-21 Conference Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportioned Programs............................... 3,968,764,800 3,545,423,946 (423,340,854)
============================================================
Allocated Programs:
Federal Lands Highways Program:
Indian Reservation Roads................... 36,050,486 36,565,651 (484,835)
Public Lands Highways...................... 32,249,049 31,815,091 (433,958)
Park Roads and Parkways.................... 21,631,440 21,339,391 (292,049)
Refuge Roads............................... 2,624,255 2,586,593 (37,662)
National Corridor Planning & Devel. & Coord. 18,633,932 352,256,000 333,622,068
Border Infrastructure Pg......................
Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal 5,059,012 25,579,000 20,519,988
Facilities....................................
National Scenic Byways Program................. 3,393,730 3,348,128 (45,602)
Value Pricing Pilot Program.................... 1,464,300 0 (1,464,300)
High Priority Projects Program................. 236,671,037 0 (236,671,037)
Highway Use Tax Evasion Projects............... 666,113 0 (666,113)
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway Program.... 14,642,998 0 (14,642,998)
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge................. 29,946,366 0 (29,946,366)
Miscellaneous Studies, Reports, & Projects..... 2,503,665 0 (2,503,665)
Magnetic Levitation Transp. Tech. Deployment 0 0 0
Program.......................................
Transportation and Community and System 3,324,822 251,092,600 247,767,778
Preservation Pilot Program....................
Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts.. 14,907,146 0 (14,907,146)
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 15,969,481 0 (15,969,481)
Innovation....................................
Surface Transportation Research................ 13,442,846 0 (13,442,846)
Technology Deployment Program.................. 5,989,273 0 (5,989,273)
Training and Education......................... 2,526,635 0 (2,526,635)
Bureau of Transportation Statistics............ 4,128,751 0 (4,128,751)
ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, and 13,976,885 0 (13,976,885)
Development...................................
ITS Deployment................................. 15,969,481 0 (15,969,481)
University Transportation Research............. 3,525,804 0 (3,525,804)
Emergency Relief Program....................... 13,310,772 0 (13,310,772)
Interstate Maintenance Discretionary........... 13,310,772 76,025,000 62,714,228
Territorial Highways........................... 4,846,545 0 (4,846,545)
Alaska Highway................................. 2,503,665 0 (2,503,665)
Operation Lifesaver............................ 68,908 0 (68,908)
High Speed Rail................................ 700,567 0 (700,567)
DBE & Supportive Services...................... 2,664,451 0 (2,664,451)
Bridge Discretionary........................... 13,310,772 62,650,000 49,339,228
Study of CMAQ Program Effectiveness............ 0 0 0
Long-term Pavement............................. 0 10,000,000 10,000,000
New Freedom Initiative......................... 0 0 0
State Border Infrastructure.................... 0 56,300,000 56,300,000
Motor Carrier Safety Grants.................... 24,221,241 23,896,000 (325,241)
Public Lands Discretionary..................... 0 45,122,600 45,122,600
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, allocated programs................. 574,235,200 997,576,054 423,340,854
============================================================
Total........................................ 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000 ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page S12338]]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED FY 2002 REVENUE
ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States TEA-21 Conference Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................................... 78,660,918 70,270,303 (8,390,615)
Alaska....................................................... 47,506,115 42,438,725 (5,067,390)
Arizona...................................................... 71,794,955 64,136,719 (7,658,236)
Arkansas..................................................... 50,998,628 45,558,698 (5,439,930)
California................................................... 357,228,521 319,088,155 (38,140,386)
Colorado..................................................... 51,633,630 46,125,966 (5,507,664)
Connecticut.................................................. 59,372,721 53,039,542 (6,333,179)
Delaware..................................................... 18,097,567 16,167,133 (1,930,434)
Dist. of Col................................................. 15,517,870 13,862,608 (1,655,262)
Florida...................................................... 187,841,638 167,804,915 (20,036,723)
Georgia...................................................... 141,803,966 126,677,998 (15,125,968)
Hawaii....................................................... 20,042,262 17,904,391 (2,137,871)
Idaho........................................................ 28,813,232 25,739,778 (3,073,454)
Illinois..................................................... 129,699,234 115,864,455 (13,834,779)
Indiana...................................................... 91,837,217 82,041,110 (9,796,107)
Iowa......................................................... 46,752,049 41,765,094 (4,986,955)
Kansas....................................................... 45,442,357 40,595,104 (4,847,253)
Kentucky..................................................... 68,342,130 61,052,200 (7,289,930)
Louisiana.................................................... 61,436,479 54,883,163 (6,553,316)
Maine........................................................ 20,796,328 18,578,021 (2,218,307)
Maryland..................................................... 64,532,116 57,648,593 (6,883,523)
Massachusetts................................................ 71,715,580 64,065,811 (7,649,769)
Michigan..................................................... 126,563,909 113,063,570 (13,500,339)
Minnesota.................................................... 57,110,525 51,018,651 (6,091,874)
Mississippi.................................................. 50,720,814 45,310,518 (5,410,296)
Missouri..................................................... 90,924,402 81,225,663 (9,698,739)
Montana...................................................... 40,640,152 36,305,141 (4,335,011)
Nebraska..................................................... 31,472,305 28,150,666 (3,321,639)
Nevada....................................................... 28,932,295 25,846,141 (3,086,154)
New Hampshire................................................ 19,605,698 17,514,394 (2,091,304)
New Jersey................................................... 100,687,563 89,947,406 (10,740,157)
New Mexico................................................... 38,735,144 34,603,338 (4,131,806)
New York..................................................... 197,128,548 176,101,207 (21,027,341)
North Carolina............................................... 111,046,039 99,200,962 (11,845,077)
North Dakota................................................. 26,630,412 23,789,795 (2,840,617)
Ohio......................................................... 136,327,071 121,785,313 (14,541,758)
Oklahoma..................................................... 60,722,101 54,244,986 (6,477,115)
Oregon....................................................... 46,434,548 41,481,460 (4,953,088)
Pennsylvania................................................. 186,849,447 166,918,559 (19,930,888)
Rhode Island................................................. 24,050,715 21,485,269 (2,565,446)
South Carolina............................................... 67,429,314 60,236,753 (7,192,561)
South Dakota................................................. 27,979,792 24,995,239 (2,984,553)
Tennessee.................................................... 89,614,709 80,055,673 (9,559,036)
Texas........................................................ 310,674,910 277,535,786 (33,139,124)
Utah......................................................... 30,202,300 26,980,676 (3,221,624)
Vermont...................................................... 18,375,381 16,415,313 (1,960,068)
Virginia..................................................... 103,703,824 92,641,928 (11,061,896)
Washington................................................... 68,461,193 61,158,563 (7,302,630)
West Virginia................................................ 41,711,718 37,262,406 (4,449,312)
Wisconsin.................................................... 77,986,228 69,667,581 (8,318,647)
Wyoming...................................................... 28,178,230 25,172,507 (3,005,723)
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 3,968,764,800 3,545,423,946 \1\(423,340,854
)
Allocated Programs........................................... 574,235,200 997,576,054 423,340,854
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents (-10.7%).
Mr. McCAIN. In addition to the RABA funding shell game, host of other
actions by the appropriators merit concern. For example, section 330 of
the conference report appropriates $144 million in grants for surface
transportation projects while the Statement of Managers then earmarks
the entire allotment for 55 projects in 31 States. I should point out
that the Senate-passed version of the appropriations bill provided $20
million for these grants, not a dime of which was earmarked, while the
House bill did not appropriate any funding for such grants. But through
the will of the conferees, the level of funding for surface
transportation projects grants are increased by $124 million and the
conferees have recommended earmarks for every penny of the grant
funding instead of allowing it to be made available for distribution on
a competitive or meritorious basis.
Examples of these earmarks included in the Statement of Mangers
include: $1.5 million for the Big South Fork Scenic Railroad
enhancement project in Kentucky; $2 million for a public exhibition on
``America's Transportation Stories'' in Michigan--this sounds like a
very critical and legitimate use of transportation dollars--and one of
my favorites, $3 million for the Odyssey Maritime Project in Seattle,
WA. What makes this last one a highlight is that the ``Odyssey Maritime
Project'' is not a surface transportation project of all. It is, in
fact, a museum. But the sponsor of that project must not have wanted us
to really know what the funding was being allocated for and instead
chose to incorporate some cleaver penmanship to mask the true nature of
the so-called transportation project.
With respect to the Coast Guard, the conference report earmarks
$2,000,000 for the Coast Guard to participate in an unrequested joint
facility that would locate a new air station in Chicago with a new
facility that would also house city and State facilities. The new
marine safety and rescue station is not justified, not requested, and
in fact would provide duplicative air coverage already met by other
Coast Guard air stations.
The conference report also earmarks $4,650,000 to test and evaluate a
currently developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in
the United States and has a top speed of 40 knots. Interestingly, there
is only one company with such a patrol craft, Guardian Marine
International, LLC., and it is based in the State of Washington. The
Coast Guard did not request this vessel, does not need this vessel, nor
does this vessel meet the Coast Guard's requirements. The Coast Guard's
resources are already stretched thin and this will only hamper its
ability to meet its new challenges since September 11. But again, the
appropriators know best.
The conference report further earmarks $500,000 for the Columbia
River Aquatic Non-indigenous Species Initiative--CRANSI--Center at
Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, to support surveys of
nonindigenous aquatic species in the Columbia River. This earmark is
directly taking away much needed Coast Guard R&D funds that could be
used to fight the war on drugs, protect our ports, or aid in search and
rescue efforts.
And, as with other modes of transportation, the appropriators have
larded the DOT's aviation programs with numerous earmarks and
authorizing language that is within the jurisdiction of the Commerce
Committee. For example, the Statement of Managers earmarks more than
$206 million in FAA facilities and equipment projects at dozens of
specific airports. I am not sure how the appropriators seem to know
precisely which pieces of equipment need to be installed at which
airports, but I believe that we should be leaving these decisions to
the FAA. The more projects that are forced upon the agency, the less
ability it has to focus on those that are truly needed to enhance
safety and capacity.
The appropriators do the same thing when it comes to airport projects
and the expenditure of discretionary funds. The Statement of Managers
earmarks more than 100 specific airport construction projects totaling
more than $200 million. Once again, this is intended to take away
significantly from the discretion of the FAA to determine the most
important needs of the system as a whole.
This might be the time to remind the Secretary and the modal
administrators that the slew of projects included in the Statement of
Managers are advisory only. The Statement of Managers does not have the
force of law and the FAA and other modal agencies must exercise its
judgment in complying with the recommendations of the managers.
While the aviation earmarking is bad, the raiding of existing
aviation accounts for unrelated purposes is even worse. The FAA's
Airport Improvement Program is supposed to be devoted to the
infrastructure needs of our nation's airports. Yet the conference
report take tens of millions of dollars out of AIP to pay for the FAA's
costs of administering AIP, the Essential Air Service program, and the
Small Community Air Service Developing Pilot Program. Theses are worthy
activities and programs, but it violates the long-established purpose
of AIP to use monies for these things.
Mr. President, last year I warned that we should just as well get rid
of DOT and let the appropriators act as the authorizing agency since
they so routinely substitute their own judgment for that of the
agency's. Well, apparently I have a job in my retirement predicting the
future. There is a provision in this bill that prohibits the use of any
funds for a regional airport in southeast Louisiana, unless a
commission of stakeholders submits a comprehensive plan for the
Administrator's approval. While that is not necessarily good
government, that is well within the agency purview. However, the bill
goes further and requires that if the Administrator approves the plan,
it must be then submitted to the Appropriations Committee for approval
before funds can be spent.
This is unconscionable. Clearly the appropriators do not want this
airport to be funded unless they say so. Are the appropriators now
going to require that every decision that is made by the oversight
agency be approved by them first? Will the Administrator or Secretary
have to send letters regarding transportation policy to Congress for
approval? Will DOT leave requests and travel schedules have to be sent
to the Appropriations Committees? Where does this end? I understand
that Congress is supposed to act as a check and balance to the
executive branch, but I must ask, who is serving as a check and balance
to the appropriators? At a minimum, isn't it supposed to be the
authorizers? But passage of this conference report will provide clear
proof that once again there are no checks and there is no balance.
Mr. President, I could go on and on but will refrain. It is hard to
imagine but despite the seemingly unlimited
[[Page S12339]] ____
lists of projects and funding redirectives provided for in this bill,
it actually could have been worse. The appropriators did rightly reject
some of the requests and wish-lists they received, such as including
language to effectively alter the federal cap on the Boston Central
Artery Tunnel Project--the Big Dig--or to take action to eliminate the
Amtrak self-sufficiency requirement now that the Amtrak Reform Council
has made its finding that Amtrak will not met its statutory directive.
Perhaps if the requesters were appropriators, their Christmas wish list
would have been fulfilled as well. I tell my colleagues, I will be
going all over the country discussing this egregious, outrageous
procedure which has gone completely out of control on a bipartisan
basis. Of all the years I have seen this egregious porkbarrel spending,
this is one of the worst.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes
remaining; the Senator from Alabama has 5 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for
yielding me a brief period of time to comment about an omission from
the appropriations conference report involving a constituent company of
mine, Traffic.com. There had been an arrangement worked out in previous
legislation. This would have given Traffic.com a followup contract for
some $50 million where they have devised systems for monitoring traffic
on the highways so the people can be informed where there is traffic
congestion.
The first contract was awarded to Traffic.com under an arrangement
where the second would follow through. There was competitive bidding
for the first contract. The Department of Transportation wanted
clarification, which was added in this Chamber on an amendment which
was accepted to give the followup contract to Traffic.com. Then when we
went to conference last week, I was informed a few minutes before the
conference began that the provision had been dropped. There had been no
notification.
When I raised the issue in the conference, I was advised there was
legislation which prohibited this arrangement which they characterized
as ``sole source contracting,'' but, in fact, it was not because the
first contract had been competitively bid with the understanding that
the second contract would follow.
In any event, our research in the interim since the conference
committee met last week, to today, shows there is no legislative
prohibition against this arrangement, even if it were sole source
contracting, which, I repeat again, it is not. We then discussed at the
conference the approach of having it included in the supplemental
appropriations bill, which we are working on now. The Appropriations
Committee is meeting this afternoon.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Murray, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Shelby, for
commenting at that time they would support the effort to get it in the
supplemental appropriations bill so we hope we can be cured at that
time.
I did want to make the brief statement on the record at this point. I
thank Senator Shelby for yielding me the time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes five seconds.
Mr. SHELBY. I yield that time back.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Under the authority granted to the majority leader by
the unanimous consent agreement of December 3, I ask unanimous consent
that the vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R.
2299, the Transportation appropriations bill occur at 12:30 p.m. today,
without further intervening action, and I now ask for the yeas and nays
on adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, back in July and August, the Senate spent
a lot of time talking about the safety of Mexican trucks.
Originally, the White House wanted to allow Mexican trucks to travel
throughout the United States without sufficient safety checks.
That raised real safety concerns for everyone from the Advocates for
Highway & Auto Safety to the AAA of Texas.
The House of Representatives, meanwhile, voted to prevent any Mexican
trucks from traveling beyond a limited area near the border.
I have always believed that we could ensure our safety and promote
commerce at the same time.
So Senator Shelby and I--working with our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle--created a commonsense safety plan.
The Senate turned back several amendments--and voted twice with
strong bipartisan super-majorities--to invoke cloture both on the
committee substitute and the bill itself.
This summer, there were several attempts to weaken the safety
provisions, but the Senate consistently rejected them.
And I am proud to say that the final conference agreement strictly
adheres to the outlines of the Senate bill.
This agreement prohibits the border from being opened to Mexican
trucks until the DOT implements a number of important safety measures,
and until the DOT's inspector general has concluded a thorough audit of
the Department's efforts.
I would like to spend a moment comparing the conference agreement
with the administration's original plan.
Let me start with compliance reviews, which are comprehensive
inspections of a trucking firm's vehicles, its management systems, and
all of its license, insurance, and maintenance records.
It looks at the trucking firm's operating and violation histories and
yields a decision as to whether the firm should be allowed to continue
operating in the U.S.
Under the administration's plans, there was never going to be a
requirement that a Mexican trucking firm undergo a compliance review.
The conference agreement, however, includes a requirement that each
and every Mexican trucking firm undergo a compliance review before
being granted permanent operating authority. There are no exceptions.
Let's look at on-site inspections.
The administration never intended to require that inspections by U.S.
truck safety inspectors take place on-site at a Mexican trucking firm's
facilities.
The conference agreement, however, requires that U.S. truck safety
inspectors must visit every Mexican trucking firm either when they
conduct their initial safety examination or when they conduct a
compliance review to determine whether the firm should be granted
permanent operating authority in the U.S.
The only exception is granted to the smallest independent operators
in Mexico. They will be required to have these same exams conducted at
the border.
Even with this exception, it is likely that these smallest of firms
will be visited on-site.
That's because the DOT will have to conduct on-site inspections of at
least half of all firms and half of all the traffic volume coming into
the U.S.
Originally, the administration did not intend to verify many licenses
when Mexican truckers crossed the border.
The DOT told us that they would verify the licenses on a random
basis--but deliberately avoided defining what was meant by the word
``random.''
That could mean verifying 1 out of every 100 licenses or 1 out of
every 1,000 licenses.
Under the conference agreement, the DOT will be required to
electronically verify at least one out of every two licenses.
And the actual ratio will be even higher.
That's because the conference agreement requires that border
inspectors verify the license of every trucker carrying hazardous
materials, and every trucker undergoing a Level I inspection, and then
requires that inspectors
[[Page S12340]]
verify 50 percent of all other vehicles crossing the border.
On the issue of overweight trucks, the administration did not intend
to implement any special effort to address overweight vehicles--even
though Mexican weight limits far exceed those in the U.S.
The conference agreement, however, requires that--within 1 year of
the date of enactment--each and every truck crossing the border at the
ten busiest border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico will be
weighed.
In fact, the conference agreement prohibits the border from being
opened at all--until half of these border crossings have weigh-in-
motion systems fully installed.
The administration did not intend to require that Mexican trucks
cross the border only where DOT safety inspectors are on duty.
The conference agreement requires that the trucks cross where
inspectors are on duty.
It also requires that they enter the U.S. at crossings where there is
adequate capacity for the inspectors to conduct meaningful inspections
and, if need be, place vehicles out-of-service for safety violations.
The DOT was planning to open the border whether or not a number of
critical truck safety rulemakings had been finalized and published.
Some of these rulemakings have been delayed for years, but the DOT
planned to open the border anyway.
The conference agreement, however, requires that the Secretary either
implement policy directives or publish interim final rules that will
immediately govern the behavior of trucking firms--before the border
can be opened.
Now let's look at the hauling of hazardous materials across the
border. The administration had not planned on implementing any unique
requirements for hazardous materials trucks even though they represent
a unique and dangerous threat on our highways.
The conference agreement, however, requires that even if other trucks
have already been allowed to cross the border no hazardous material
trucks will be allowed to enter the U.S. until the governments of the
U.S. and Mexico enter into a separate agreement confirming that U.S.
and Mexican drivers of these vehicles have been subjected to the same
unique requirements.
Finally, concerning the oversight of the inspector general, the
administration was planning to open the border without regard to the
long list of safety deficiencies that had been cited by the DOT
inspector general.
As far as the DOT was concerned, the inspector general could continue
to publish as many critical audits as he wanted to--but they were going
to open the border on January 1 without regard to whether any of the
deficiencies had been addressed.
There wasn't even a process in place to require the Transportation
Secretary to acknowledge the findings of the IG.
Under the conference agreement, no trucks may cross the border until
the IG has completed another entire audit of the DOT's efforts.
And no trucks may cross the border until the Transportation Secretary
has received the IG's findings and has certified in writing, in a
manner addressing each of those findings, that the opening of the
border does not present an unacceptable risk to our constituents.
So, the conference agreement includes a serious mechanism to hold the
Transportation Secretary accountable for his decision to open the
border.
And you can be sure that the Transportation Appropriations
subcommittee will be holding a hearing with both the Transportation
Secretary and the inspector general once the IG has made his findings
and the Secretary is poised to issue his certification.
Some observers have suggested that the requirements of the conference
agreement are not as restrictive as the measures that passed the
Senate.
As I view it, the safety requirements are effectively the same.
The conference agreement gives the administration a degree of
flexibility in implementing these safety requirements.
Others have said that the border is likely to open more quickly under
the provisions of the conference agreement than under the Senate-passed
bill.
That may be true. But I want to remind my colleagues that, it has
never been our goal to keep the border closed.
I voted for NAFTA.
I represent a state that is highly-dependent on international trade.
And I believe in the economic benefits that come with lower trade
barriers.
Throughout this entire process, my goal--and that of Senator Shelby--
has been to ensure the safety of our highways.
And I am proud that this conference agreement makes great progress
for our safety.
I am prepared to yield back all of our time on the bill if there is
no one to speak.
I yield back the remainder of our time.
____________________