[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.

                          ____________________