[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21778-21789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2000--Continued

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are trying to get to the end of the 
Transportation appropriations bill. I think we are close. Maybe we can 
wind it up in just a few minutes and get a vote. In the meantime, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Amendments Nos. 1673, 1667, and 1666, As Modified

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
amendments numbered 1673, 1667, and 1666, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1673.
       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. Thomas, for 
     himself and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 1667.
       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1666, as modified.

  The amendments (Nos. 1673, 1667, and 1666, as modified) are as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 1673

       At an appropriate place in the Federal-aid Highways 
     (Limitations on Obligations) (Highway Trust Fund) section 
     insert the following: ``Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     shall, at the request of the State of Nevada, transfer up to 
     $10,000,000 of Minimum Guarantee apportionments, and an equal 
     amount of obligation authority, to the State of California 
     for use on High Priority Project No. 829 `Widen I-15 in San 
     Bernardino County,' Section 1602 of Public Law 105-178.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1667

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . For purposes of Section 5117(b)(5) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the cost 
     sharing provisions of Section 5001(b) of that Act shall not 
     apply.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 1666, as modified

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need for 
   reimbursement to the Village of Bourbonnais and Kankakee County, 
  Illinois, for crash rescue and cleanup incurred in relation to the 
                 March 15, 1999, Amtrak train accident)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the Village 
     of Bourbonnais, Illinois and Kankakee County, Illinois, have 
     incurred significant costs for the rescue and cleanup related 
     to the Amtrak train accident of March 15, 1999. These costs 
     have created financial burdens for the Village, the County, 
     and other adjacent municipalities.
       (b) The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
     conducted a thorough investigation of the accident and opened 
     the public docket on the matter on September 7, 1999. To 
     date, NTSB has made no conclusions or determinations of 
     probable cause.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Village of Bourbonnais, Illinois, Kankakee County, 
     Illinois, and any other related municipalities should 
     consistent with applicable laws against any party, including 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), found 
     to be responsible for the accident, be able to recover all 
     necessary costs of rescue and cleanup efforts related to the 
     March 15, 1999, accident.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, these amendments have been cleared by both 
sides; therefore, I urge their immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1666, 1667, and 1673, as modified), en bloc, 
were agreed to.



  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1680

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.


[[Page 21779]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself and Mr. 
     Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1680.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, line 22, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall use any surplus funds that are made 
     available to the Secretary, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to provide for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard''.
       On page 18, lines 4 and 5, strike ``notwithstanding Public 
     Law 105-178 or any other provision of law,''.
       On page 18, line 24, insert after ``Code:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That $6,000,000 of the funds 
     made available under 104(a) of title 23, United States Code, 
     shall be made available to carry out section 5113 of Public 
     Law 105-178:''.
       On page 19, lines 12 and 13, strike ``notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law,''.
       On page 20, lines 7 and 8, strike ``notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law,''.
       On page 20, line 12, strike all after ``That'' through ``of 
     law,'' on line 21.
       On page 20, line 22, strike ``not less than'' and insert 
     the following: ``$5,000,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out the National Differential Global Positioning System 
     program, and''.
       On page 22, line 15, strike ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for'' and insert the following: ``For''.
       On page 24, lines 4 through 8, strike: ``: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to implement section 656(b) of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 405 note)''.
       On page 40, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following: 
     ``Gees Bend Ferry facilities, Wilcox County, Alabama''.
       On page 40, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following: 
     ``Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, Southern 
     Crescent Transit bus service between Clayton County and MARTA 
     rail stations, Georgia''.
       On page 42, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: 
     ``Jasper buses, Alabama''.
       On page 43, line 16, insert after ``Lane County, Bus Rapid 
     Transit'' the following: ``buses and facilities''.
       On page 44, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following: 
     ``Los Angeles/City of El Segundo Douglas Street Green Line 
     connection''.
       On page 47, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following: 
     ``Newark intermodal center, New Jersey''.
       On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following: 
     ``Parkersburg intermodal transportation facility, West 
     Virginia''.
       On page 56, strike line 18, and insert the following: 
     ``Dane County/Madison East-West Corridor''.
       On page 57, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: 
     ``Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project;''.
       On page 59, line 10, strike ``and the''.
       On page 59, line 11, after ``projects'' insert the 
     following: ``; and the Washington Metro Blue Line extension--
     Addison Road''.
       On page 61, strike lines 1 and 2, 11 and 12.
       On page 62, strike lines 1 and 2.
       On page 62, line 4, strike ``and the'' and insert: 
     ``Wilmington, DE downtown transit connector; and the''.
       On page 80, line 24, strike ``; and'' and insert ``.''.
       On page 81, strike lines 1 through 8.
       On page 90, strike lines 4 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec.   . (a) None of the funds in this act shall be 
     available to execute a project agreement for any highway 
     project in a state that sells drivers' license personal 
     information as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3) (excluding 
     individual photograph), or motor vehicle record, as defined 
     in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), unless that state has established and 
     implemented an opt-in process for the use of personal 
     information or motor vehicle record in surveys, marketing 
     (excluding insurance rate setting), or solicitations.
       ``(b) None of the funds in this act shall be available to 
     execute a project agreement for any highway project in a 
     state that sells individual's drivers' license photographs, 
     unless that state has established and implemented an opt-in 
     process for such photographs.''
       On page 91, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Of funds made available in this Act, the 
     Secretary shall make available not less than $2,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for planning, engineering, 
     and construction of the runway extension at Eastern West 
     Virginia Regional Airport, Martinsburg, West Virginia: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall make available not 
     less than $400,000 for the Concord, New Hampshire 
     transportation planning project: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall make available not less than $2,000,000 for 
     an explosive detection system demonstration at a cargo 
     facility at Huntsville International Airport.
       ``Sec.   . Section 656(b) of Division C of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 is repealed.
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     amount made available pursuant to Public Law 105-277 for the 
     Pittsburgh North Shore central business district transit 
     options MIS project may be used to fund any aspect of 
     preliminary engineering, costs associated with an 
     environmental impact statement, or a major investment study 
     for that project.
       ``Sec.   . For necessary expenses for engineering, design 
     and construction activities to enable the James A. Farley 
     Post Office in New York City to be used as a train station 
     and commercial center, to become available on October 1 of 
     the fiscal year specified and remain available until 
     expended: fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000.''

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this managers' amendment has been cleared 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1680) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


            stevenson expressway/wacker drive rehabilitation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Fitzgerald, and I 
would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, in a brief colloquy 
regarding the Stevenson Expressway and the Wacker Drive rehabilitation 
projects.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Senator Shelby knows both of these projects are 
vitally important to the Chicago metropolitan region's transportation 
system. The Stevenson carries 135,000 vehicles per day, including 
24,000 heavy trucks, and is 15 years beyond its design life. Wacker 
Drive, in downtown Chicago, built in 1926, is also well beyond its 
design life. It carries 60,000 vehicles per day. Both projects are high 
priorities of the Illinois Congressional Delegation.
  Mr. DURBIN. During congressional consideration of TEA-21 last year, 
these projects were partially funded and further identified as 
excellent candidates to receive funding from U.S. Department of 
Transportation discretionary funds. These projects have subsequently 
received some discretionary funding and are eligible to receive 
additional funds this year. Does the Senator agree that both of these 
projects are good candidates for discretionary funding in FY 2000?
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senators from Illinois for drawing attention 
to these projects. I agree that both the Stevenson Expressway and 
Wacker Drive rehabilitation projects are eligible for federal 
discretionary funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation under 
the approach adopted in the Senate bill.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. We thank the chairman for his remarks.


                        upper cumberland airport

  Mr. FRIST. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, for his 
willingness to discuss an important aviation issue for Tennessee. 
Specifically, the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport's critical need for 
taxiway and safety improvements.
  Mr. SHELBY. I am aware of this project, and would like to strongly 
recommend that the FAA give priority consideration to this request for 
discretionary funding. The Grants-In-Aid for Airports program is 
designed to provide federal assistance to airports like the Upper 
Cumberland Regional Airport for vital safety enhancements and other 
improvements as my friend from Tennessee mentioned.
  Mr. FRIST. The Senator's willingness to offer support for this 
project in Cookeville, Tennessee is greatly appreciated. I'm certain 
the FAA will take note of the Chairman's support and give this project 
every consideration.


[[Page 21780]]

               muskegon coast guard seasonal air facility

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Michigan to engage the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the Coast Guard's proposal to 
close the seasonal air facility in Muskegon, MI. On July 13th, we wrote 
the distinguished Chairman to seek his assistance on this issue and 
attempted to explain the necessity to keep this facility open.
  Mr. President, in that letter, we described how on February 3rd of 
this year, we wrote the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Secretary 
of Transportation asking for a detailed explanation of this proposal in 
light of what appeared to be a dramatic reversal on the 
Administration's part given its previous statements as to both the 
desirability of Muskegon and the overall need for a southern Lake 
Michigan seasonal facility.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. These letters, Mr. President, closely follow the letters 
the entire Michigan delegation sent the Chairs of both the House and 
Senate Appropriations bills. Although we have been briefed by the Coast 
Guard regarding this proposal, we have not received a formal response 
from the Commandant or the Secretary.
  Mr. LEVIN. There are concerns within the Michigan delegation, Mr. 
President, that the proposal to close Muskegon may have been due to the 
Coast Guard's constrained funding and was not necessarily based on an 
analysis of the safety needs of boaters on Southern Lake Michigan.
  Mr. President, it would appear premature to close the facility at 
Muskegon given the investment made by both the Coast Guard and the 
local community to establish this seasonal facility. In choosing to 
locate the facility in Muskegon in the first place, the Coast Guard 
projected large cost savings that would not be fully realized if the 
station were closed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am aware of this issue due to the 
diligence of the Michigan Senators, and I understand the concerns they 
have regarding Coast Guard's proposal. I have seen the amendment filed 
by colleagues from Michigan to ensure the continued search and rescue 
coverage from the Muskegon Air Station during the high-traffic summer 
season. While I would be concerned if the closure of this facility 
would cause a degradation of search and rescue capability, it is not 
possible at this point to incorporate such legislative directives to 
the Coast Guard given the large number of other legislative initiatives 
regarding Coast Guard facilities that have been presented to the 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand the difficulty the 
distinguished Chairman has in opening up such a panoply of Coast Guard 
issues to resolve this one problem. However, I would like to bring his 
attention to page 21 of House Report 106-180 to accompany JR 2084, the 
House Transportation Appropriations Act for FY 2000 where it directs 
that the Muskegon seasonal air facility operations continue through FY 
2000.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am aware of House action on this matter 
as well as the Senators' role in bringing about that action and of 
their steadfast commitment to improving boating safety. I can assure 
the Senators from Michigan that I will support directing the Coast 
Guard in the final Transportation Appropriations Act for FY 2000 to 
keep the Muskegon seasonal Air Facility open.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that assurance is important and welcome, 
and I believe I speak for the entire Michigan delegation in thanking 
the distinguished Chairman for his support and in committing our 
efforts to assist him in any way he may need to see this provision 
incorporated into the final Transportation Appropriations Act for FY 
2000.


                      Middle Fork Snoqualmie Road

  Mr. GORTON. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie valley is 110,000 acres of 
forests, mountains, and rivers located just 45 minutes east of Seattle. 
Ninety-eight percent of the land is public ownership. In recent years, 
the valley has been plagued by dumping, indiscriminate shooting and 
general lawlessness. Strong efforts are being made, however, by federal 
agencies and conservation groups to turn the valley back into a place 
safe for recreationists. No other place in the Northwest presents such 
an opportunity to create a first-class recreation area so close to 
millions of people.
  A key part of turning this valley back into an attractive place is 
providing better and safer access. The present road into the valley is 
unpaved, potholed and dusty. An improved, paved road would provide 
safer, more pleasant access and allow for better law enforcement.
  The Federal Highways Administration, Western Federal Lands Division, 
currently has $5 million budgeted for a new Middle Fork highway. Local 
conservation groups in my state, however, feel that the kind of highway 
which the F.H.W.A. builds would amount to massive overkill. The 
F.H.W.A. is restricted by its design standards to build only one kind 
of road--a highway in every sense of the word, with huge cuts and 
fills, broad sweeping curves and a wide swath cleared of trees on both 
sides. Conservationists feel that such a highway would destroy the very 
qualities which make the Middle Fork valley an attractive place.
  Mr. SHELBY. I understand the concerns of the Senator of Washington 
and his desire to provide adequate access to an important area in his 
state without disrupting its unique attributes. I would be happy to 
work with Senator Gorton, the Federal Highway Administration, and other 
interested parties to resolve this issue.
  Mr. GORTON. I appreciate the Senator's interest and would like to 
explore a proposal submitted by my constituents interested in 
preserving and enhancing the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Valley. I believe 
an appropriate solution would be to transfer the monies appropriated to 
the Federal Highway Administration for this road project to the U.S. 
Forest Service, giving the U.S. Forest control over design of the road. 
The Forest Service is not so rigidly bound in its design standards as 
the Federal Highway Administration, and could construct a paved road 
which closely follows the alignment of the existing road and goes 
through the woods. Such a road would provide much improved access 
without compromising the valley's integrity. I look forward to working 
with my colleague from Alabama.


                   Intelligent transportation system

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the Chairman of 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding 
the Intelligent Transportation System program. Mr. President, I was 
very pleased that the report accompanying S. 1143, the Senate 
Transportation Appropriations bill for FY 2000, contained direction 
that Southeast Michigan receive no less than $4 million for ITS 
deployment projects. I was particularly pleased with that designation 
as I had requested the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 
provide $3.5 million for the Southeast Michigan Snow Information 
Management System, and wish to thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee for that designation. Does the Chairman believe such a 
further designation for this particular project would be in order?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I was pleased to support that designation 
in the drafting of S. 1143, and was particularly impressed that it is 
projected to reduce the cost of winter storm maintenance by 10% in 
Southeast Michigan, reduce weather-related accidents by 10%, as well as 
reduce by 5% the amount of salt used on those roads, while also 
creating a model for other states to improve their snow removal 
operations. Because of that, I believe that the Federal Highway 
Administration should consider the SEMSIM project as the top priority 
project within that $4 million distribution to Southeast Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I appreciate the Senator's support and clarification Mr. 
President, and join him in calling upon the FHWA to quickly provide 
this additional funding for the SEMSIM project 

[[Page 21781]]

as soon as the Appropriations Act is signed into law.
  Mr. President, I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss 
what should be done with the remaining $500,000 within that $4 million 
distribution to Southeast Michigan. Mr. President, I would like the 
Chairman of the



Subcommittee to know that after he had marked up S. 1143, I received a 
request from Wayne County in Michigan to support a Roads Infrastructure 
Management System project that will use Global Positioning Satellite 
system technology and data to geocode the existing infrastructure 
inventory over the county's 1,400 miles of roads, such as signage, 
lighting, bridges, and existing utility runs, so as to better identify 
where road improvements will be most efficiently executed, and provide 
the greatest improvements. The ultimate goal is to implement a travel 
routing system that can be accessed over the Internet by commuters and 
freight carriers. Having this geocoded inventory will permit the county 
to quantitatively assess and schedule road improvement projects and 
improve traffic flow.
  The total cost of a comprehensive Geographic Information System is 
about $60 million, but Wayne County has already committed $14 million 
to building this base map, and to date, has completed all of it's 
digital ortho photography at the 6'' pixel resolution. The Roads 
Information Management System is one of the most costly applications 
within this project, and will cost the County $7.4 million. The County 
was originally seeking $5 million in federal funding, but I believe any 
portion thereof would further this worthy effort.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee if he could support this 
project within the existing $4 million designation?
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I agree that the RIMS project described by 
Senator Abraham indeed appears to be worthy of federal funding, and I 
would recommend that the Federal Highway Administration provide funding 
for this project to the extent possible after fully funding the SEMSIM 
project discussed before. Furthermore, if the final appropriations bill 
will provide more ITS money for Michigan, I will press to have both of 
these projects funded as fully as possible, in accordance with the 
prioritization I have previously discussed.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chairman for his considerable assistance on 
this matter, and look forward to working with him on this issue as it 
moves through to final passage.


              the incremental train control system (itcs)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
Manager of this Appropriations Bill regarding funding of specific 
projects under the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program.
  Mr. President, I see that the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations 
Bill provides a total of $7.3 million for various positive train 
control projects, and of that amount, $5 million is designated for the 
Alaska Railroad and $1 million for the Transportation Safety Research 
Alliance.
  Now Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee is well aware, the Administration requested 
$3 million for the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) along the 
Detroit to Chicago passenger rail corridor in its FY 2000 Budget 
Request. This project has previously received $6 million in federal 
funds, and I am very thankful for the designation the Chairman was able 
to convince the Conference Committee to provide this project last year 
even though my request came very late in the legislative process.
  The reason I believe this project is worthy of specific funding is 
that it is a key component in the efforts by Amtrak as well as the 
Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition to allow for passenger rail service 
of up to 125 miles per hour, not only along the Detroit to Chicago 
corridor, but elsewhere as the $3 million requested by the 
Administration would complete the research of this project, and allow 
the technology to be applied to other rail corridors across the 
country.
  Mr. President, I recognize the strict funding constraints the 
Subcommittee faced in drafting this appropriations bill, and the 
significant hurdles that had to be overcome in order to find this level 
of funding, but I wonder if the Chairman may be able to comment on the 
possibility that some level of funding could be found for the ITCS 
project.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his 
comments, and he is correct, we did face significant constraints 
throughout this bill which impacted upon the Next Generation High Speed 
Rail program. Furthermore, the Administration's funding request for 
this specific program was funded in part with a recommendation to 
transfer Revenue Aligned Budget Authority from the State highway 
formula to this and other programs, a proposal which was rejected by 
the Congress. I believe the Senator from Michigan opposed the RABA 
transfer from the States in the Budget Committee.
  However, I believe the unallocated portion of the train control 
demonstration program under the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program 
should be allocated to the Michigan ITCS project, and as we enter the 
Conference with the House, I will work to ensure adequate funding for 
this project.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his support of 
this project, and for his efforts to provide the necessary funds for 
our transportation infrastructure as we enter the 21st Century. I look 
forward to working with him on this program as the bill moves to 
Conference.


                            pipeline safety

  Mrs. MURRAY. I rise to request a colloquy with my colleague from 
Washington State, Senator Gorton.
  On June 10, 1999, 277,000 gallons of gasoline leaded from an 
underground pipeline in Bellingham, Washington. It ignited and 
exploded. Three people were killed: an 18-year-old young man and two 
10-year-old boys. This is a tragedy.
  The Office of Pipeline Safety, the National Transportation Safety 
Board, the FBI, the EPA and State agencies have spent the last four 
months trying to determine why this happened. We still don't know the 
direct cause and may not know for some time.
  I wish I could say this was an isolated instance, but I can't. Recent 
pipeline accidents have occurred in other places. In Edison, New 
Jersey, one person died when a natural gas pipeline exploded. In Texas, 
two people lost their lives when a butane release ignited. In fact, 
last November the owner of the pipeline that exploded in Bellingham had 
an accident in another part of my State that took six lives.
  These pipelines are potential threats. There are some 160,000 miles 
of pipelines in the U.S. carrying hazardous materials. Many of these 
pipes run under some of our most densely populated areas; under our 
schools, our homes, and our businesses.
  I am disappointed that this year the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee did not adequately fund the Office of Pipeline Safety, the 
authority governing interstate pipelines. I tried to get the 
appropriations in this year's bill to the level requested by the 
President. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. It is my hope we can 
increase funding in next year's appropriations.
  I am also committed to strengthening OSP's oversight of pipelines and 
commitment to community safety in next year's reauthorization of OPS.
  I will be working with Senator Gorton, who is on the committee, to 
ensure greater OPS effectiveness and oversight of the industry.
  I also want to point out U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney 
Slater's prompt attention to this issue. Immediately following the 
accident, he met with me and granted my request to have a full-time OPS 
inspector stationed in Washington State. He has also been very helpful 
and informative as we've progressed through the investigation phase. I 
thank him. I know he will continue to work with us in the future on 
OPS's appropriations and next year's authorization.
  Mr. GORTON. I would like to thank my colleague from Washington State.
  
[[Page 21782]]  
  
She has been out front on this issue, and I commend her for her 
persistence.
  I look forward to working with Senator Murray during the 
reauthorization of the Federal Office of Pipeline Safety, a piece of 
legislation in which I will fully engage when it comes before the 
Senate Commerce Committee next year. While the interstate 
transportation of hazardous materials in above and underground 
pipelines has proven to be the safest and most cost-effective means to 
transport these materials, the Bellingham tragedy has once again 
alerted us to its tragic potential. During the OPS reauthorization 
process I intend to ensure that the Federal law



and the Federal agency are performing their jobs of ensuring that 
tragedies like the one in Bellingham are not repeated. I will work 
closely with Chairman McCain, the Majority Leader and my Democratic 
colleagues to make this a top priority next year.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague. I will also continue to push for 
reform. We must take a long hard look at the effectiveness of OSP's 
oversight activities; review ways to develop new technologies for 
detecting pipeline defects; consider the effect of aging pipelines on 
safety; review industry's influence on the regulation of pipelines; and 
focus on our training and testing procedures for inspectors and 
maintenance workers. I also intend to look at ways to treat 
environmentally sensitive and highly populated areas, recognizing the 
multitude of safety and ecological problems operating pipelines in 
these places can create.
  Finally, I will work to strengthen communities' ``right to know,'' so 
people are aware when there are problems with the pipelines that 
threaten their neighborhoods.
  Mr. GORTON. I share the Senator's concerns and I am certain we will 
deal with those questions and ideas in the context of reauthorization 
legislation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you.


                lewis and clark bicentennial celebration

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a matter important 
to my State's participation in the upcoming Lewis and Clark 
Bicentennial celebration. As you and other history buffs may know, the 
Corps of Discovery led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark spent much 
of their travels in what is now my State of Montana. This celebration 
will have an enormous impact on the State's economy and infrastructure. 
We have a number of sites on the Missouri River that have retained 
historic ferry transportation. Currently, in the Fiscal Year 2000 
Transportation Appropriations bill, the committee has included $2 
million for the upgrade of the McClelland Ferry. A more fiscally 
responsible use of these funds would be to spread this funding level 
out over three ferry sites on the historic Missouri River. Those sites 
are the McClelland, Virgelle, and Carter Ferry sites. I would like to 
also indicate that is important to recognize that these upgrades should 
maintain all of the historic features of the traditional ferry site. It 
is not my intention to replace these historic ferries with bridge work 
or new ferries.
  Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate my colleague bringing this issue to my 
attention and am interested in ensuring that scarce Federal 
transportation resources are used as efficiently as possible. I 
understand your concerns and look forward to working with you on this 
issue.


          increased funding for u.s. route 2 in new hampshire

  Mr. GREGG. U.S. Route 2 is an important travel and commerce 
thoroughfare in the New Hampshire North Country that runs through New 
Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. On January 11, 1999, the New Hampshire, 
Maine and Vermont Senate delegation sent a joint letter to Secretary of 
Transportation Rodney Slater. In this letter the delegation asked 
Secretary Slater to give consideration to a $13 million joint state 
grant application funded through TEA-21's National Corridor Planning 
and Development Program (NCPD) and Coordinated Border Infrastructure 
(CBI) for U.S. Route 2. The joint New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont 
application received a total of only $1.5 million in funding for U.S. 
Route 2. I am sure that the Senator from Alabama would agree that this 
funding level for U.S. Route 2 is completely inadequate. I ask the 
Senator from Alabama to join me in urging the Secretary of 
Transportation to allocate more funding through the NCPD and CBI for 
U.S. Route
  Mr. SHELBY. I agree with the remarks of the Senator from New 
Hampshire, and I look forward to working with him on this issue in the 
future.


                                 aovcc

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief 
colloquy with the Chairman regarding some weather observation equipment 
for the FAA.
  As the Chairman will remember, last year he was very helpful in 
getting money in the Department of Transportation Appropriation bill 
for FY 99 to begin testing of the Automated Observation for Visibility 
Cloud Height, and Cloud Coverage (AOVCC) system. Using high resolution 
digital imaging, laser ranging and high performance computing 
technology, the AOVCC system augments the current ASOS by adding the 
capability to detect fast-moving weather systems in a timely and 
representative manner. Is it my understanding that FAA is currently 
testing this equipment and it appears that AOVCC is performing up to 
expectations.
  Would the Chairman agree that if testing of AOVCC is successful, FAA 
would make every effort to purchase the AOVCC system to enhance 
existing weather observation?
  Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator will yield, this equipment appears to be a 
promising technology which has the potential to greatly enhance safety. 
I would concur with the Senator from Oklahoma that if FAA determines 
that the test of the AOVCC is successful, every effort should be made 
to purchase this equipment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman for his ongoing support of this 
important safety equipment.


               big mountain road and great falls airport

  Mr. BURNS. I would like to engage my colleague from Alabama on a 
number of issues relating to the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of 
Transportation Appropriations bill. Montana's roads and airports are 
inadequately funded. I would like to focus on a couple of projects that 
must be addressed in the state immediately or we will be facing serious 
economic loss as a result. The first is the Big Mountain Road. This is 
a forest service access road, private property access road and also 
provides access to Big Mountain Ski area. During the winter when 
conditions are worst, this steep road is traversed frequently and while 
the road is covered with snow and ice. Montana winter conditions are 
not friendly to our paved roads. I would like to express my support of 
funding for this road. In 1996, the state estimated reconstruction 
costs to be around $6.5 million. The road is presently one of the 
busiest roads in the state awaiting reconstruction. Mr. Chairman, this 
is no small matter--every year Montanans are either killed or injured 
in accidents on this dangerous road. The freeze thaw conditions we face 
make this road an important project in our state.
  Mr. SHELBY. I understand your concerns and agree with you about the 
weather-related burdens on Montana's roads. Such conditions can be very 
harmful to a paved surface.
  Mr. BURNS. I would also like to address another important matter in 
our state. The Great Falls Airport is the home to a Federal Express 
regional hub. Fed Ex employs numerous employees in the Great Falls 
area. Our problem originated when the FAA mandated the airport find 
another option for Fed Ex's operations. That mandate has required the 
airport to begin immediate construction of an apron to accommodate Fed 
Ex's Great Falls operations. I met with Jane Garvey on this issue and 
was appreciative of the interest she has taken. Although she and her 
staff have indicated their support of this project, the FAA is unable 
to provide funding considering the Airport Improvement Program has 
lapsed. Mr. Chairman, dirt has been turned on this project and we 
cannot afford to turn back at this time. Further delays will mean loss 
of revenue, possible job loss and increased funding requirements. 
Construction season in Montana is short and we must take action on this 
project immediately. I 

[[Page 21783]]

would like to request your assistance obtaining 
the $4.5 million required to solve this problem. We will need to 
address this problem immediately during this year and soon after the 
beginning of the 2000 Fiscal Year. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHELBY. We have many airports in need of increased funding. I 
understand the nature of your problem in Great Falls requires immediate 
concern. Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention.


                         BULLFROG CREEK BRIDGE

  Mr. BENNETT. I want to bring to the Chairman's attention an issue 
that we would hope to address this year. In Garfield County, Utah, we 
have what is called the Boulder to Bullfrog Highway which goes from the 
tiny town of Boulder to the Bullfrog Basin Marina at Lake Powell. This 
road crosses some of the most rugged, scenic and roadless country in 
the southwest. Headed eastbound, a traveler will cross the Grand



Staircase Excalante National Monument, Capitol Reef National Park, 
additional BLM lands and on into the Glen Canyon National Recreation 
Area. It is county-maintained road with a right-of-way crossing federal 
lands.
  Sections of the road are classified as both improved and unimproved 
meaning that sections are paved in some places and are gravel or dirt 
in others. Despite this, it is heavily traveled by tourist and locals 
because it is the only east-west road for 60 miles north or south. 
During the spring and summer, flash floods often will wash out the road 
forcing its closure. This occurs most often near the Bullfrog Creek 
drainage, where it is not unusual to have a 100 yard section of the 
road washed out. When this happens, a detour of over 150 miles is 
required just to get to the other side of Capitol Reef National Park 
which would otherwise be roughly a 30 mile drive.
  Clearly, there is an public interest in keeping the road open, yet 
every summer the County and the National Park Service expend 
considerable capital and manpower to keep the road open after every 
rain. This situation could be alleviated by placing a series of 
culverts or other type of structures over the Bullfrog Creek drainage 
to keep the road from washing out.
  With this in mind, I ask the Chairman if he believes it would it be 
appropriate to provide Garfield County, Utah approximately $500,000 
from the Federal Lands Highway account to install a structure to keep 
the road open throughout the year?
  Mr. SHELBY. The Senator raises a very good point. Given the economic 
and public safety impacts on the County when the road is closed as well 
as the potential liabilities for the Federal Government, I will work 
with the Senator, the House and the Administration during conference on 
this bill to identify funds for the County to improve this small 
section of the road.


                      public lands highway program

  Mr. REID. I would like to engage my colleague, Senator Shelby, the 
Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, in a brief discussion 
about an important program for my home state of Nevada.
  As my colleagues know, Nevada is a state with a very large amount of 
federal lands. Nearly eighty-seven percent of the state is federal 
land. In fact, Nevada trails only Alaska in total acreage under federal 
control.
  As such, Nevada qualifies for preference under the Public Lands 
Highway Discretionary Program portion of the Federal Lands Highway 
program, since, in the words of the law, its borders include ``at least 
3 percent of the total public lands in the nation''. (The other states 
are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 
Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.) This factor, together with consideration of 
a state's need, are the only statutory instructions on the awarding of 
discretionary funds under Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program.
  Is the Chairman aware that this body has historically not earmarked 
projects under Federal Lands Highway program. However, the other body 
has undertaken to heavily earmark the program this year even though 
this undercuts the basic intent of Congress in creating the 
discretionary program for states heavily impacted by federal land 
holdings.
  In addition, this earmarking has the effect of reducing the federal 
agencies ability to utilize the program for very urgent needs on 
federal lands and for which there is simply no other source of federal 
funds. I have a copy of Nevada's submission to the FHWA for Public 
Lands Highways funding in FY 2000. Eight of the nine projects are 
submitted by federal agencies.
  I hope that my good friend and colleague, Senator Shelby, can address 
this problem in Conference, by reemphasizing the intent of the Congress 
with respect to this program.
  Mr. SHELBY. My colleague is exactly right. The Public Lands Highway 
Program was indeed created to fulfill the long-neglected infrastructure 
needs of our nations vast holdings of federal lands. I share the 
Senator's commitment to ensuring that public lands states, such as 
Nevada, continue to receive the lion's share of funding under this 
program. I will also seek to address the Senator's concerns about 
earmarking of this program both in Conference this year and when 
drafting next year's Transportation Appropriation's bill.
  Mr. REID. I thank my colleague.


                maine's advanced wood composites center

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby, and the distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Lautenberg, in a brief colloquy in order to make clear 
the intent behind some language contained in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee's report accompanying S. 1143, the FY 2000 Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  I want to first thank the distinguished managers of this bill for 
their assistance last year in securing approximately $1.2 million in FY 
99 funding for advanced engineered wood composites for bridge 
construction to be conducted by the University of Maine's Advanced Wood 
Composite Center. As both Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg may 
recall, the University of Maine is the institution that pioneered this 
technology and is currently working with the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) in this area of research and development.
  On page 95 of this year's Senate Appropriations Committee Report 
accompanying S. 1143, it states in part ``The Committee is interested 
in research to develop advanced engineering and wood composites for 
bridge construction and has provided $1.2 million for that purpose 
within this program.''
  I want to inquire of the distinguished managers of this bill if it is 
their intent that the University of Maine's Advanced Wood Composites 
Center is to receive the funding referenced by this part of the 
Committee's report, in order that the University can continue to 
support FHWA's research in this vital area.
  Mr. SHELBY. The distinguished Senator from Maine is correct. This 
report language is intended to convey that it is the Senate's intention 
for the FHWA to continue its advanced engineered wood composites 
research and development program begun last year at the University of 
Maine's Advanced Wood Composites Center. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Maine for giving us the opportunity to clarify our intent 
on this matter.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague for making their intent in this 
respect clear, and I thank them for working with me on this important 
project both last year and this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                        airline passenger safety

  Mr. REID. I would like to engage my colleague, Senator Shelby, the 
Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, in a brief discussion 
about several important programs that impact my home state of Nevada. 
While these projects and programs are not currently fully funded in 
this bill, I am pleased that my colleague, senator Shelby, has 
indicated that he will seek to find resources in the final conference 
report.
  The first two programs I would like to discuss today are cutting edge 
research and technology programs, ones where relatively small 
allocations of 

[[Page 21784]]

resources can pay huge long-term dividends to consumers.
  The first research effort I would like to discuss is the Strategic 
Alliance for Passenger Airline Security. A consortium of local, state, 
and private entities, including the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, the 
University of California-Los Angeles, Alaska Airlines, and Certified 
Airlines Passenger Services, a Nevada-based company is working with the 
FAA to develop a decentralized baggage and check-in system that will 
allow passengers to check-in at various remote locations in the city of 
origin, such as hotels, shopping malls, or other aviation check-in 
points.
  In a state as dependent upon tourist traffic as Nevada, the ability 
to more efficiently handle arrivals and departures is critical. As 
airports struggle in the coming years to cope with more and more 
passengers in facilities that are unable to expand, alternative, safe, 
technologies for keeping passenger and baggage traffic moving will 
become critical. I am grateful that my colleague, Senator Shelby has 
recognized the merits of increased research and development in this 
area. I am looking forward to working with my Chairman on this issue in 
conference and during the upcoming fiscal year. Only by encouraging 
innovation can the FAA hope to keep our Nation's aviation system out of gridlock.
  The second technology that I want to discuss to day is a Remote 
Certification and Maintenance system, a technology developed by Arcata, 
a Nevada-based company.
  In the Committee-passed version of this bill Senators Shelby and 
lautenberg included language favorable to the remote certification and 
maintenance technology manufactured by Arcata. It is my understanding 
that the FAA has informed the Committee of their ability to deploy up 
to $5 million worth of this technology at remote radar centers 
throughout the nation. As this technology gives older generation radars 
advanced RMM capability, the cost savings alone make this a worthwhile 
investment of our nation's resources.

  Finally, as all of my colleagues are aware, Nevada has been one of 
the fastest growing states in the nation for most of the last two 
decades. Southern Nevada attracts nearly 5,000 new residents per month. 
Given this colossal growth, it is no surprise that the demand for 
aviation infrastructure has sky-rocketed in recent years.
  These increases in aviation traffic in the skies over Southern Nevada 
have make Contract Air Traffic Control Tower Service at Henderson 
Executive Airport absolutely critical.
  A relatively small investment of resources at the third largest 
airport in Southern Nevada will solve what is becoming a sticky air 
traffic control issue for the Las Vegas Valley, especially in light of 
the county's decision to move the majority of Grand Canyon overflight 
tour operators from McCarran to the airports in Henderson and North Las 
Vegas.
  Let me be clear, I am not asking for special treatment here. The 
Clark County Department of Aviation has recently received independent 
confirmation of a cost-benefit ratio of over 1.0 (specifically 1.16) 
and expects the FAA to verify that figure in the near future. Any 
rating over 1.0 makes a facility eligible for this funding. The cost-
benefit ratio, coupled with Henderson's status as the third rung in a 
much more complex air traffic system, make funding for this service an 
easy choice for Congress to make. I am delighted to have your support 
for the Contract Tower Program and for the specific inclusion of 
Henderson Executive Airport in the program, Mr. Chairman.
  I appreciate your consideration and look forward to working with you 
on these and other important issues in conference.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for raising these important issues 
with me. Even in a tight budget year, such as this one, I agree that 
these programs and projects have merit and I will work diligently to 
secure funding for them in the House-Senate Conference or in whatever 
end-of-year mechanism we use to fund transportation in FY 00.


                         georgia noise barriers

  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the distinguished Chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation yield for a question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be happy to yield to the senior Senator from 
Georgia for a question.
  Mr. COVERDELL. As you know, there are several areas in my state of 
Georgia where the interstate expanded significantly around existing 
neighborhoods. The Georgia Department of Transportation wanted to put 
up noise barriers to address this situation. TEA-21 provided $750,000 
for Type II noise barriers on I-75 in Clayton County and I-185 in 
Columbus, Georgia. It also provided $1.5 million for noise barriers 
along GA-400, and allowed federal highway funds to be used for noise 
barriers along I-285. Unfortunately, because of an error in drafting 
the provisions included in TEA-21, the Georgia Department of 
Transportation is not able to complete these noise barrier projects. I 
have proposed an amendment which would correct this problem and allow 
my state to use their apportioned federal highway funds to complete 
these noise barrier projects. Would you be willing to work with me to 
address this problem?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be happy to work with you on this matter during 
conference negotiations with the House. I understand that the Senator 
had secured a commitment that this matter will be affirmatively 
addressed by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the next 
authorizing legislation vehicle. I commend the Senator for his 
initiative, diligence, and hard work on this matter. I will continue to 
watch and work with the Senator on this important issue for his state.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his help. I yield the floor.


         drexel university intelligent infrastructure institute

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to thank the 
Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for having 
included language in the Senate report urging the Federal Highway 
Administrator to work with Drexel University to focus on the link 
between intelligent transportation systems and transportation 
infrastructure. As the Chairman knows, for the next several years the 
United States will be making massive investments in its transportation 
infrastructure, and, in view of the limited resources available for 
these investments, there has never been a greater need to be certain 
that these expenditures are wisely prioritized and based on sound 
assessments of the structural integrity of the existing infrastructure. 
In recent years, we have all been gratified to witness the revival of 
many of our major cities, but, while desperately needed, investments in 
the urban transportation infrastructure are especially costly.
  Thankfully, we are finding that technology is coming to our aid as we 
seek to address the issue of transportation infrastructure investments 
in an urban environment. One especially gratifying example of the 
application of information technology--``smart'' technology--to the 
management and maintenance of transportation infrastructure can be 
found in Drexel University's Intelligent Transportation Institute. In 
the passage of TEA-21 last year Congress specifically recognized the 
outstanding work of the Institute and included a special section of 
that bill--Section 5118--which authorized $10 million to ``conduct 
research, training, technology transfer, construction, maintenance, and 
other activities to advance infrastructure research.''
  I would ask whether the Senator agrees with me that work such as that 
conducted at the Drexel Institute is essential for determining the 
actual structural integrity of urban transportation infrastructure--
such as multimillion dollar bridges--monitoring their ``health'' in 
real-time, and determining cost-effective and innovative maintenance 
and operational strategies.
  Mr. SHELBY. I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania's assessment 
of the importance of smart technology and commend the work being done 
at Drexel University's Intelligent Infrastructure Institute. It is 
important 


[[Page 21785]]

that we continue to support the work of the Institute, and I 
look forward to working with the Senator during the conference with the 
House to see that this work is accomplished this year and in succeeding 
years.


                        unalaska pier extension

  Mr. STEVENS. The Senate Report on the FY2000 Department of 
Transportation bill allocates $8 million to the Coast Guard to pay for 
the costs of extending the Unalaska municipal pier to provide a 
dedicated berth for the agency's High Endurance cutters. The Coast 
Guard is currently forced to shift the High Endurance cutters when in 
port because the large vessels inadvertantly serve as obstacles to the 
commercial ship traffic, and the vessels' antennae have at times 
impeded commercial aviation service into Unalaska.
  I have since been informed that the Coast Guard may not have 
sufficient capability to manage a dock extension project in this remote 
region of the Aleutian Islands. Since the City of Unalaska owns the 
main pier, I have asked the City to take on the responsibility of 
managing the pier extension through its municipal competitive 
procurement process and to assume the responsibility of maintaining the 
dock extension in exchange for being able to use the space when the 
High Endurance Cutters are not present. Such an arrangement would 
dramatically reduce any outyear operating expenses for the Coast Guard 
associated with the pier space. This arrangement would require a 
transfer of funds from the Coast Guard to the City at some point next 
year. While I am not offering an amendment today, we may find that



such a Local-Federal cooperative endeavor may need specific legislative 
language in the final FY 2000 appropriation bill. Am I correct in my 
understanding that this issue will be evaluated and technical language 
may, if necessary, be considered in conference?
  Mr. SHELBY. The Chairman is correct. I strongly concur that the Coast 
Guard should ask the City of Unalaska to use its own local knowledge 
and competitive procurement process to manage the pier extension. I 
also agree that the Congress should encourage an arrangement between 
the City and the agency to reduce the Coast Guard's operating costs 
associated with the long-term maintenance of any dedicated pier space. 
We will seek to address this in conference at the appropriate time.


                          savannah water taxi

  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the distinguished Chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation yield for a question?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be happy to yield to the senior Senator from 
Georgia for question.
  Mr. COVERDELL. As you know, last year your Committee provided 
$500,000 in federal funding for a water taxi service to and from 
Hutchinson Island, near Savannah, Georgia. This water taxi is vital to 
the overall success of the Georgia International Maritime and Trade 
Center located on the island. While I am disappointed that the Senate 
failed to include any additional funding for Savannah's water taxi 
service in the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill, it is my 
understanding that the House included $1 million to help complete this 
important project. Would the Chairman be inclined to recede to the 
House approved amount in the conference report?
  Mr. SHELBY. I will be happy to work with the senior Senator from 
Georgia on this issue during conference negotiations with the House. I 
realize how important the establishment of a water taxi service in 
Savannah, Georgia is to you and the local community. I appreciate all 
your hard work and diligence on this project.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his help. I yield the floor.


                  niosh aviation safety study funding

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Subcommittee Chairman 
would be willing to discuss with me an Alaskan Aviation Safety Study 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, called--
NIOSH, has proposed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes, I would join the Appropriations Chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. As a 
licensed private pilot in Alaska, I am well aware of the challenges 
every pilot in my state faces every day. On some per capita basis, 
there are more pilots in Alaska than in any other state in the union. 
For many of the residents in my state, air travel is the only mode of 
intrastate transportation.
  Alaska is one-fifth the size of the lower 48 with a population 
roughly the size of Montgomery County, Maryland. For many Alaskans, air 
travel is the only way to get there from here. We have some of the 
roughest terrain and weather on this continent. Very little flying in 
Alaska is done above 10,000 feet. Most flying is done in small, single 
and twin engine aircraft that have historically higher accident rates 
than high-flying multi-engine turbojets.
  On average, in the last decade, there has been one aviation accident 
every other day in Alaska. One hundred pilots, and 266 others have died 
in aircraft crashes in Alaska since 1991. Every nine days, on average, 
we lose another Alaskan to an aircraft accident. And these statistics 
do not take into account four helicopter accidents since June of this 
year. This and other data compiled by the National Transportation 
Safety Board and NIOSH show that for the first time in our history, 
aviation accidents have become the leading cause of occupation-related 
fatalities in Alaska.
  This is why I am asking the good Senator from Alabama to consider 
partial funding for a promising safety study that has been proposed by 
the Alaska Field Station of the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health when his bill goes to conference. This study will 
bring together all the leaders in Alaska aviation. Industry, state and 
federal agencies and pilots themselves will all contribute to an 
intense examination of how to improve aviation safety in Alaska. The 
Federal Aviation Administration, the National Weather Service, and the 
National Transportation Safety Board are all enthusiastic supporters of 
the study. It is my hope that this study will foster common sense, 
industry-led safety initiatives--not promulgate increasingly burdensome 
federal restrictions and penalties.
  Mr. SHELBY. I am aware of the Senator from Alaska's ongoing efforts 
to improve aviation safety in his home state. And I know he is 
particularly impressed with NIOSH's past record of initiating safety 
improvements without recommending more regulations--it is an impressive 
record. I have flown within the state of Alaska on many occasions and 
have witnessed firsthand the unique challenges Alaskan aviators face. 
The NIOSH study is a worthy project for my subcommittee's consideration 
when this bill goes to conference. I will work to find the funds to 
support this study.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my friend from Alabama and remind him that I 
plan to ask the Subcommittee Chairmen of Commerce, Justice, State, the 
Judiciary, and Labor, HHS to also contribute funds to this study. For 
your committee's review and oversight, I have asked NIOSH to provide 
annual progress reports.


  improvements to provide access to the boyer chute national wildlife 
                                 refuge

  Mr. KERREY. I realize that this year, you and Ranking Member 
Lautenberg, are facing a challenging appropriations season with tight 
budgetary constraints. However, I wanted to bring to your attention a 
very important project of mine regarding road improvements in 
Washington County, NE.
  Mr. SHELBY. Can the Senator from Nebraska please describe your 
request in greater detail?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes, it would be my pleasure. The State of Nebraska 
requires $2,432,000 for road improvements to provide access to the 
Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge near Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. 
Currently, the road that leads to Boyer Chute through Washington County 
is unpaved. This road is an important thoroughfare and is the most 
direct route to Boyer Chute. Boyer Chute has become an increasingly 
popular recreation area and tourist destination. Traffic on the current 
road has increased and will continue to increase as the National 
Wildlife continues its expansion next year. 

[[Page 21786]]

Paving the road will greatly improve access to this national 
treasure--and will be of great benefit to Nebraskans.
  Mr. SHELBY. I have noted the importance of this project and I hope to 
work with you further on this project during conference.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the chairman for his assistance. I appreciate his 
consideration of this very important project.


                     clarifying project flexibility

  Mr. CRAIG. I rise to seek clarification from the Chairman concerning 
a provision relating to spending flexibility for high priority 
transportation projects.
  As you know, action taken during the 105th Congress established that 
the states of Idaho, Alaska, and West Virginia can each ``pool'' the 
state's obligation authority for high priority projects--a flexibility 
provided to Minnesota under Section 1212(m) of TEA21(m) of TEA21 (later 
redesignated in technical corrections legislation as Section 1212[g]). 
This enables federal funds to be directed to the high priority project 
or projects in the state which are ready to go, rather than ration out 
obligation authority proportionately to all high priority projects in 
the state, whether or not ready to go.
  Section 336 of S. 1143 would provide to New Jersey the same 
flexibility. However, on page 170 of the Senate Committee report on the 
bill (S. Rpt. No. 106-55), at the point where the report shows changes 
from existing law, only the states of Minnesota and New Jersey are 
mentioned as having this flexibility in obligating high priority 
project funds.
  Is it the Chairman's understanding that the flexibility granted to 
Idaho, Alaska, and West Virginia under Section 1212(g) of TEA-21 is 
still in force and effect, does not require yearly reenactment, and is 
unchanged by the amendment contained in the Senate bill?



  Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Idaho is correct. Idaho, Alaska, and 
West Virginia have already each been granted flexibility under Section 
1212(g) of TEA-21, to ``pool'' the state's obligation authority for 
high priority projects, as long as the total amount of funds authorized 
for any project for which the funds are allocated are not reduced. This 
flexibility does not have to be re-established legislatively on an 
annual basis, and nothing in the FY2000 Transportation Appropriations 
bill or report changes this flexibility.


             supporting public lands discretionary project

  Mr. CRAIG. I rise to engage the Chairman in a colloquy concerning the 
use of the Public Lands Program funds.
  In its report, the Committee has raised serious concerns--supported 
by findings of the General Accounting Office--about how funds have been 
awarded under the Public Lands Program. To correct this problem, the 
report gives several specific directions to the Federal Highway 
Administration and a list of projects that should be funded by the 
Secretary.
  I would like to draw the Chairman's attention to a request made by 
the state of Idaho for $6.0 million from this program to make needed 
improvements to U.S. 89 from West Forest Boundary to Bishoff Canyon.
  This project would improve safety and capacity of the highway, which 
provides the only significant access into the Caribou National Forest 
in the region for hunting, fishing, mountain biking, hiking, camping, 
and snowmobiling. Of the total project distance of 8.3 miles, about 6.6 
miles (80 percent) is located within the forest boundary. The highway 
and also provides connections to Jackson Hole, Yellowstone Park, and 
Bear Lake. Timber sales in the area require logging trucks to negotiate 
a very narrow and slow speed route, inconsistent with safety and the 
route's designation as a National Highway. The Idaho Highway Needs 
Report shows multiple deficiencies for this segment of roadway, 
including pavement width, foundation, drainage, shoulder condition, 
accident rate, and overall combined rating.
  The requested $6.0 million will complete the work presented under the 
1991 ISTEA Demonstration project, supplementing $18.0 million in 
demonstration funds. The limits and scope of the ISTEA demonstration 
project are not being expanded. Additional funds are requested to cover 
the cost of moving almost 2 million cubic yards of unanticipated earth 
and rock. In fact, without supplemental funds, the original 
demonstration project would need to be shortened and limited.
  Mr. SHELBY. It is clear that the US 89 project, from West Forest 
Boundary to Bishoff Canyon in Idaho, is a critical priority for Idaho 
and the nation, and deserves to be funded. I assure the Senator from 
Idaho that we will work to include this project in any list of earmarks 
determined by the conference committee.


                        the indian roads program

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, in a colloquy.
  I want to begin by commending you, Senator Shelby for the hard work 
you have done in crafting this Transportation appropriations bill. You 
have done a fine job under difficult circumstances in funding the 
priorities identified by the Committee in this bill, and providing 
increased flexibility to the states.
  As you know, one of the more important highway programs in this bill 
for my home state of New Mexico is the Indian Reservation Roads 
program. The program is directed to about 22,000 miles of Bureau of 
Indian Affairs roads serving tribal lands. Of these roads, only 11 
percent of the paved roads are rated as being in good condition. Close 
to 90 percent of the unpaved roads are know to be in poor condition. 
Indian Reservation Roads funds are critical to improving transportation 
for Native Americans in New Mexico.
  I understand that in putting together this bill, the Chairman 
adjusted the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) allocation 
formula, and that programs under the Federal Lands Highways program 
will receive a total of $37.3 million less in funding under the Senate 
bill than they otherwise would under TEA-21. This will affect the 
Indian Reservation Roads program, which is part of the Federal Lands 
Highways program. Because of these changes to the RABA formula, Indian 
Roads will not receive an additional $14.5 million in funds it is 
authorized to under TEA-21. Thus, the Indian Roads program will receive 
$275 million, instead of the full $289.5 million that would be 
allocated under TEA-21. I am concerned about this and hope that the 
Chairman will work to improve the situation for Indian Roads in 
conference.
  As this bill moves to conference, will the Chairman pledge to make 
every effort to sustain full funding as envisioned by TEA-21 for the 
Indian Reservation Roads program?
  Mr. SHELBY. I am aware of the importance of the Indian Reservation 
Roads program to the Senator from New Mexico, and pledge to work for 
full funding of the Indian Reservation Roads program as provided in 
TEA-21.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I yield the 
floor.


             the national environmental respiratory center

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with you an 
important transportation research initiative addressed in the report 
accompanying the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill. I refer to 
the National Environmental Respiratory Center headquartered in 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the Lovelace Respiratory Research 
Institute.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would be pleased to discuss the potential of this 
Center's research initiative as part of the FY 2000 Department of 
Transportation spending plan. The Committee has recognized funding for 
this initiative within our Committee report, both under the 
Department's multi-disciplinary research account and in the Federal 
Highway Administration.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the NERC 
Center, and I would like to highlight the potential of this Center's 
work as it would relate to the Department of Transportation's mission. 
The National Environmental Respiratory Center--NERC as it is called--is 
the only research program in the United States 

[[Page 21787]]

focused specifically on the increasingly troublesome issue of 
understanding the health risks of 
mixtures of air pollutants.
  A major difficulty in moving forward in managing these residual 
health risks associated with air quality is the fact that no citizen 
ever breathes one pollutant at a time. Scientists are realizing that it 
is unlikely that any remaining effect of air pollution on health is 
actually caused by a single air pollutant acting alone. Clearly, the 
transportation sector is at least one significant factor in the 
relationship between air quality and public health. Therefore, it is 
essential that the Department of Transportation participate in the 
interagency, multi-disciplinary public-private NERC initiative. I thank 
the Committee for acknowledging this effort in the report accompanying 
the pending bill.
  The National Environmental Respiratory Center was conceived as a 
joint government-industry effort to determine how to identify the 
contributions of individual pollutants and their sources to the health 
effects of complex mixtures of air contaminants. The work is well 
underway and broad recognition of its importance is manifested by the 
continually increasing support from industry. Continued support through 
this appropriations bill is essential to carrying out the Center's 
multi-year research strategy. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful 
the U.S. Department of Transportation will take heed of our 
recommendation, and I look forward to working with you on this matter.
  Mr. SHELBY. It does appear that the Center stands apart from other 
research programs by tackling the pollution mixtures problem directly. 
In my view, this effort is worthy of support by the Department. I will 
work with you as the FY 2000 spending plan for the Department is 
implemented to encourage the Agency to respond to our recommendation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.


                           amendment no. 1658

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President yesterday, this body unanimously adopted the 
Helms amendment to H.R. 2084, the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Helms amendment expresses the 
sense



of the Senate that the United States Census bureau should include 
marital status on the short form census questionnaire to be distributed 
to the majority of American households for the 2000 decennial census. 
The marital status question currently appears only on the long form 
which will be distributed to one out of every six households, rather 
than to all households as the short form is distributed.
  I agree with the importance of collecting information about marital 
status, and I know that by using modern statistical methods and the 
information obtained from the question on the long form, we will know 
how many Americans are married. Although I supported the amendment, I 
offer some explanation about the amendment, on behalf of the Census 
Bureau, about why the marital status question was moved to the long 
form rather than left on the short form. I would also like to respond 
to my colleague from North Carolina, who said that the U.S. Census 
Bureau ``obviously no longer regards marriage as having any 
importance.'' This attitude should not be ascribed to the actions of 
the Census Bureau. This was hardly a frivolous decision. Rather, an 
explanation can be found in the agency's efforts to comply with 
Congressional mandates on the decennial census questionnaires.
  In one of its many mandates imposed on the Census Bureau about 
conducting the 2000 census, Congress directed the agency to reduce the 
number of questions asked on decennial questionnaires. In response, the 
Census Bureau performed a review of each question on both the long form 
and the short form. From this review, the agency eliminated questions 
for which it found no statutory or legal requirement, including the 
marital status question. A major reason for excluding certain questions 
from the short form is that the short form must be processed 
immediately to provide timely information to States for redistricting 
purposes. In accordance, the questions not needed for redistricting 
purposes were eliminated from the short form and some were shifted to 
the long form. Some questions were eliminated altogether, for the sake 
of brevity. Marital status was determined as not necessary for State 
redistricting purposes, not because the Census Bureau regarded marriage 
as unimportant, and therefore was shifted to the long form.
  Following the question review and elimination, the Census Bureau 
complied once again with long-standing Congressional mandate and 
provided the proposed questionnaire two years in advance of the 
decennial census. This submission was made on March 31, 1998, to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and Majority Leader in the Senate, and 
the Subcommittee on the Census and Speaker in the other body. After 
this submission, the agency accepted and considered various concerns 
about the content of the form. The Census Bureau reports that no 
comments regarding content of the marital category were received. The 
Census Bureau then finalized the questionnaire content.
  At present, 246 million of the 462 million forms for the 2000 
decennial census have been printed. Redesigning and reprinting this 
quantity of questionnaires would be extremely costly and lead to 
deleterious delays. We are already within seven months of the 
questionnaire mail-out date. In addition, the FY 2000 Commerce-Justice-
State Appropriations Bill that funds the Census Bureau has not yet 
passed, and the version of the bill produced by this body does not 
provide the full $4.6 billion request--our figure is $1.7 billion 
short. Therefore, even if the forms were reprinted, the Census Bureau 
would not have adequate funds to mail the forms.
  Mr. President, the Census Bureau needs much more support than we are 
giving it if we expect a fair and accurate 2000 census. I feel that 
amendment #1658 provides us with a perfect opportunity to call on 
conferees on the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill to provide 
full funding for the 2000 census. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
on this matter.


                        budget committee scoring

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2000.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
and the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for 
bringing us a balanced bill within necessary budget constraints.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $13.9 billion in a new budget 
authority (BA) and $17.5 billion in new outlays to fund the programs of 
the Department of Transportation, including federal-aid highway, mass 
transit, and aviation activities. When outlays from prior-year budget 
authority and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals 
$12.8 billion in BA and $43.6 billion in outlays.
  The Senate-reported bill is exactly at the Subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation for budget authority, and the bill is $4 million in outlays 
under the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. President, I support the bill and urge its adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 21788]]

                                S. 1143, TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS, 2000: SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                                             [Fiscal year 2000, $ millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              General                                  Mass
                                                                              purpose       Crime       Highways     transit     Mandatory      Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority......................................................      12,034   ...........  ...........  ...........          721      12,755
    Outlays...............................................................      14,226   ...........      24,574        4,113           717      43,630
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority......................................................      12,034   ...........  ...........  ...........          721      12,755
    Outlays...............................................................      14,226   ...........      24,574        4,117           717      43,634
1999 level:
    Budget authority......................................................      11,913   ...........  ...........  ...........          698      12,611
    Outlays...............................................................      13,797   ...........      20,379        4,402           665      39,243
President's request
    Budget authority......................................................      12,843   ...........        (376)  ...........          721      13,188
    Outlays...............................................................      14,842   ...........      23,774        3,560           717      42,893
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority......................................................       6,474   ...........  ...........  ...........          721       7,195
    Outlays...............................................................       9,479   ...........      24,599        4,113           717      38,908
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority..................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Outlays...........................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          (4)  ...........          (4)
    1999 level:
        Budget authority..................................................         121   ...........  ...........  ...........           23         144
        Outlays...........................................................         429   ...........       4,195         (289)           52       4,387
    President's request
        Budget authority..................................................        (809)  ...........         376   ...........  ...........        (433)
        Outlays...........................................................        (616)  ...........         800          553   ...........         737
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority..................................................       5,560   ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........       5,560
        Outlays...........................................................       4,747   ...........         (25)  ...........  ...........       4,722
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions. Prepared by SBC Majority
  Staff, July 16, 1999 01:16:52 p.m.




  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I understand there are no further 
amendments to the bill. Therefore, we are prepared for third reading.
  I ask that the Senate now proceed to a vote on passage of the 
Transportation Appropriations bill.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Breaux
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Wellstone
  The bill (H.R. 2084), as amended, was passed.
  [The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I now move the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House, and that the Chair 
appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Allard) 
appointed Mr. Shelby, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Byrd, Ms. 
Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise not to delay the process at all 
but just to acknowledge the fact that we have passed a bill that took 
some time and an awful lot of work, I must say. I commend my colleague 
and my good friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby, chairman of the 
subcommittee. We had some disagreements. This was not just sweetness 
and light; it was a good, solid debate. We called on the body to make 
decisions for us at times. That is the way it should be. So I thank 
Senator Shelby for being so cooperative on issues and for understanding 
what we had to do. We went ahead and did it.
  I also thank Senator Chafee and other members of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee for their cooperation. We had some questions 
that had to be answered, and it took time to thoroughly review them.
  Also I want to say, without our respective staffs doing the work they 
did, this job would be a lot more complicated and would take even more 
time. I speak specifically about Wally Barnett, the chief of staff on 
the Republican side, and Peter Rogoff on our side, and the other 
members of the team: Joyce Rose, Paul Doerrer, Mitch Warren, Laurie 
Saroff, Denise Matthews, and Carol Geagley on our side, because they 
made it, if not easy, certainly in many cases they simplified the 
issues to get them down to digestible form. It did make it considerably 
easier. I thank them.
  I thank my good friend from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague, the 
former chairman of the committee, the 


[[Page 21789]]

ranking Democrat, Senator Lautenberg, and his staff. I believe, as he 
said, we worked a lot of hours, but our staff has put in, together, many 
more hours. I want to recognize and thank Wally Burnett, who is the staff 
director on the subcommittee, also Peter Rogoff whom Senator Lautenberg has 
just mentioned, Elizabeth Letchworth, Jay Kimmitt, Joyce Rose, Paul Doerrer, 
Steve Cortese, and all the others who contributed to this.
  We think we have a pretty good bill. We have to go to conference and 
work it out. Let's hope we can do it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________