[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15305-15312]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  I yield the floor.
  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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, presently negotiations are going on to try 
to get a unanimous consent agreement to resolve this issue, and to move 
on to other issues. Among those negotiations is the subject of 
nominations. I hope that is part of any agreement that may be made.
  (The further remarks of Mr. McCain are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1213

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself and 
     Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment No. 1213.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1213.
  The amendment (No. 1213) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleague from Texas, 
Senator Gramm, asked that his substitute be printed again in the 
Record. Much has been said about this substitute amendment. The claim 
is made that this substitute will protect safety while complying with 
NAFTA. That is just plain wrong. This claim is indicative of the 
problem we have had in these negotiations--the fact that our opponents 
define compliance with NAFTA as gutting the safety provisions in our 
bill.
  Lets look at the specifics of the McCain-Gramm substitute.
  The McCain-Gramm amendment is a legislative sleight of hand intended 
to take the teeth out of the safety provisions that were approved 
unanimously by the Appropriations Committee.
  They create loopholes large enough to drive a Mexican truck through.
  Their amendment looks and sounds very much like the committee-adopted 
provisions when, in fact, the amendment weakens the committee-adopted 
provisions in several critical and dangerous ways.
  First, the McCain-Gramm amendment completely does away with the 
requirement that all Mexican trucking companies undergo a thorough 
compliance review before they are given authority to operate in the 
United States. Instead of that requirement, the McCain-Gramm amendment 
substitutes a cursory ``safety review''.
  A safety review is a much comprehensive review of a trucking 
company's operations. It is a quick and dirty paper check. It is not a 
thorough examination to ensure that a trucking company complies with 
all U.S. safety standards. It does not approach a compliance review in 
terms of ensuring that a trucking firm's operations are safe.
  My colleagues should not be fooled. A safety review and a compliance 
review are not the same thing. They are two very different things. A 
safety review should provide the American public with a whole lot less 
comfort than a compliance review when it comes to the operations of 
Mexican trucking firms.
  Second, the McCain-Gramm amendment completely does away with the 
requirement that compliance reviews be performed on site at each 
trucking firm's facility. Every time a U.S. Motor Carrier Safety 
Inspector performs a compliance review on a U.S. trucking firm, it is 
done at the trucking firm's facility. Every time a U.S. Motor Carrier 
Safety Inspector performs a compliance review on a Canadian trucking 
firm, it is done at the Canadian trucking firm's facility. Now when it 
comes to Mexico, the McCain-Gramm amendment wants to allow compliance 
reviews to be conducted at the border. This is a farce.
  A compliance review, by definition, requires the inspector to 
carefully review the trucking firm's vehicles, record books, log books, 
wage and hour records, and much, much more. You

[[Page 15306]]

can't perform a compliance review at a remote site. It is not even a 
poor substitute.
  There is a long list of abuses that can result if inspectors never 
visit a trucking company's facility. For the life of me, I can not 
imagine why the sponsors of the McCain-Gramm amendment want to allow 
those potential abuses on the part of Mexican trucking firms while 
insisting that every compliance review here in the United States and in 
Canada is performed on site.
  Third, the McCain-Gramm amendment waives the requirement that the DOT 
publish critical safety rules before allowing trucks across the border. 
The McCain-Gramm amendment would allow the requirement to be waived by 
the Secretary by simply signing a letter stating that he will not 
publish these rules and sending it to Congress.
  The provision unanimously adopted by the Appropriations Committee 
requires that critically important safety rules must be completed by 
the DOT before the border can be opened. These rules were not randomly 
selected. The rules that we require to be published before the border 
can be opened are targeted at the specific safety concerns surrounding 
Mexican trucks.
  The McCain-Gramm amendment pretends to mandate that these rules go 
forward but simultaneously includes a provision that guts the same 
requirement. My colleagues--don't be fooled, the requirement in the 
McCain-Gramm amendment is a phony one that severely weakens the 
measures included in the committee-adopted provision.
  Fourth, the McCain-Gramm amendment does away with the requirement 
that the inspector general certify that critical safety measures are in 
place before the border is opened.
  Instead of requiring that the inspector general certify that it is 
safe at the border, the McCain-Gramm amendment simply requires that the 
Secretary of Transportation periodically submit reports to the 
committee on the state of problems at the border.
  This is a monstrous loophole. It creates more and more paperwork in 
Washington while the Mexican trucks come streaming across our border. 
It completely guts a number of the critical requirements in the 
underlying committee provision.
  The Committee on Appropriations receives a great many mandated 
reports by the Department of Transportation. Unfortunately, the record 
of the Department of Transportation in submitting reports to the 
committee is a poor one.
  As of this date, the Department of Transportation is overdue in 
submitting more than 22 reports to our committee from five different 
agencies within the Department of Transportation. Some of the deadlines 
of these reports date as far back as December 1995.
  This provision, frankly, is an insult. What our highway safety agenda 
needs is not more reports, it needs real improvements in the safety of 
the vehicles and drivers moving 18-wheelers across our country.
  That observation is not only applicable to Mexican drivers, it is 
applicable to United States drivers and Canadian drivers as well. All 
the reports in the world are not going to improve the condition of 
highway safety in the United States.
  What we need are firm mandates like those adopted by the 
Appropriations Committee to ensure that critical safety measures are in 
place before we face an influx of Mexican trucks that we are not ready 
for.
  The provisions in the committee bill must not be watered down. The 
committee provisions won't stop trade across our border. But they will 
stop unsafe drivers and unsafe trucks from threatening the American 
public. These provisions must not be weakened.
  Under our bill, when you are driving on the highway and there's an 
18-wheeler with a Mexican license plate in front of you, you can feel 
safe.
  You will know that the truck was inspected.
  You will know that the company has a good track record.
  You will know that an American inspector visited their facility--on 
site--and examined their records--just like we do with Canadian 
trucking firms.
  You will know that the driver is licensed and insured.
  You will know that the truck was weighed and is safe for our roads 
and bridges.
  You will know that we're keeping track of which companies and which 
drivers are following our laws and which ones are not.
  You will know that, if a driver is breaking our laws, his license 
will be revoked.
  You will know that the truck didn't just cross our border unchecked, 
but crossed where there were inspectors on duty--ensuring our safety.
  That is a real safety program. That program must not be watered down, 
weakened, or gutted, as is proposed by the McCain-Gramm amendment.
  Mr. President, the committee bill is a solid compromise. It will 
allow robust trade--while ensuring the safety of our highways. I urge 
all Members to reject this effort to weaken the committee bill and 
endanger lives on our highways.


                     woodrow wilson memorial bridge

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a short colloquy 
with Virginia's Senior Senator, Senator Warner; Senators Mikulski and 
Sarbanes from Maryland; Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 
chair, Senator Murray and ranking member, Senator Shelby regarding the 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge was 
completed in 1961 and carries more than 200,000 vehicles per day--far 
exceeding the 75,000 vehicle per day design. It is the Nation's only 
federally owned bridge. Newspaper accounts from 1994 cited the fact 
that the deteriorating condition of the bridge and its inadequate 
number of lanes has contributed to accident rates twice those of other 
segments of the Capital Beltway.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last year after years of negotiating, 
Congress was able to reach a compromise to finally replace this 
dilapidated bridge. We were able to work with our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, from Maryland, and from the House to make certain 
this much needed replacement project was fully funded. This decision by 
Congress demonstrates the strong commitment by the United States Senate 
to provide all our citizens a flexible, safe, and efficient interstate 
highway system.
  This year, the administration and the House of Representatives have 
demonstrated their support of this project as the President requested 
$28.2 million and the House allocated $29.5 million for Fiscal Year 
2002. However, the Senate FY2002 Transportation appropriations bill 
does not address funding for the Wilson Bridge, placing this project in 
jeopardy.
  Mr. President, the unique nature of this roadway as a federally owned 
bridge, its importance to the Capital region, and the surrounding mid-
Atlantic region, demands that we restore these funds.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, in working with the Senators from 
Washington and Alabama, it is our understanding that they intend to 
work with the conferees to retain funding at the House level. Because 
of the Federal Government's ownership, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
continues to be a priority legislative issue for me and for my Senate 
colleagues. Accordingly, this appropriation will help keep the 
replacement project on pace and maintain the safety of the current 
bridge in the interim.
  Ms. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the importance of the Wilson 
Bridge for the eastern coastal region. I can assure the Senators from 
Virginia and Maryland that Senator Shelby and I will keep their views 
in mind when the bill goes to conference.
  Mr. SHELBY. I agree, Mr. President, on the importance of the Federal 
Government's role in maintaining a safe interstate highway system and 
will work with the chairwoman and other interested Senators to fulfill 
the federal commitment and maintain the interstate.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Transportation Appropriations 
chair and ranking member for their

[[Page 15307]]

willingness to work with us on this issue and for their leadership in 
crafting a bill that increases transportation funding across the entire 
country. I also thank my colleagues from Maryland and Senator Warner 
for their continued representation and leadership for the people of the 
region and America. We look forward to completing the much-needed 
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge replacement and closing the debate on 
the bill permanently.


                            florida projects

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the report language that 
accompanies the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill 
identifies many worthy projects that the committee recommends be funded 
by the Department of Transportation. I thank the chairwoman for her and 
the committee's support of projects in Florida that were requested by 
Senator Graham and myself. However, many other worthwhile projects were 
not included on this list. It is my understanding that the report 
language is intended to guide conferees in setting the final spending 
measure, but does not preclude other projects from also being 
considered for inclusion. Is this correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida is correct. The committee 
endorses the projects included in the bill's report, and will press for 
the adoption of that list in conference on this bill. However, the 
limited nature of that list does not prevent other projects from being 
supported during conference, should available resources be found.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for that clarification. 
The bill before us makes the best of a difficult situation by spreading 
limited funds over as many worthwhile transportation programs and 
projects as possible. I believe the committee has worked diligently to 
support a great number of projects in spite of limited resources. I 
further understand that if additional resources cannot be found, it 
might be possible to redistribute funds over a more diverse list of 
worthwhile recipients than is currently outlined in the Committee's 
report. Specifically, there are two counties in Florida, Brevard County 
and Polk County, that are deserving of federal funds for bus 
acquisition, which were unfortunately not included in either the House 
or Senate reports. I understand that the Senator from Washington may be 
able to work with conferees to see that these counties receive some 
federal funds for bus and bus facilities, either by finding additional 
resources or by reallocating funds within this account. Is this 
correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to work with you to address these 
concerns as the Transportation bill moves through the process.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the distinguished Senator. I appreciate your 
support and that of your staff on this issue, and look forward to 
working with you.


           asr-9 airport radar service life extension program

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
Appropriations Committee has recommended an increase of $10M above the 
FAA's $12.8M budget request to expedite the ASR-9 service life 
extension program. Unfortunately, the House Transportation bill failed 
to provide an increase in funding for this critical program.
  I have been advised that major portions of the ASR-9 radar processor 
will be unsupportable within 2 years. The supply of various critical 
spare parts--which are no longer manufactured by various commercial 
suppliers--is nearing a critical stage. When the supply of these parts 
run out, we run the risk of dangerous radar outages at 125 of our 
countries busiest airports.
  I am particularly concerned that if this $10 million of additional 
funding is not preserved in conference, delays in program startup will 
prevent the insertion of new technology in time to avoid potential 
radar outages.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Let me say to the Senator from Maryland that we will 
keep her concerns in mind as the Transportation bill moves through 
conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this issue 
and look forward to working with you on this important issue.


                        transportation research

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to spend just a few minutes 
today discussing two existing transportation research programs with the 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend 
Senator Murray. Is the distinguished chairman aware of the existing New 
Mexico Road Lifecycle Innovative Financing and Evaluation (RoadLIFE) 
program at the Federal Highway Administration and the National 
Transportation Network Analysis Capability (NTNAC) program funded 
through the Department's Transportation Planning, Research and 
Development Program?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I am aware of these two valuable programs in the 
Department of Transportation and appreciate the opportunity to discuss 
them with you.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The ongoing RoadLIFE program is a partnership between 
FHWA, the State of New Mexico, and several universities to demonstrate 
the possible benefits of innovate financing methods, such as Grant 
Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE), and performance warranties on 
highway safety, road quality and on the long-term costs to maintain a 
highway. Last year, the Department announced a 20-year research 
agreement between the Department, the Volpe Center and the State of New 
Mexico to validate the cost savings to the government of these 
innovative funding approaches. Does the chairman agree that this study 
could provide valuable information that could change the future of road 
building in America?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from New Mexico, is correct. The RoadLIFE 
program could be a valuable effort not only to New Mexico, but to all 
states that are interested in using innovative highway financing 
methods.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The State of New Mexico will continue to shoulder most 
of the costs associated with the RoadLIFE research initiative and the 
FHWA has been an essential and valued partner in the development and 
implementation of the innovative approaches to financing and warranties 
being tested in New Mexico. Does the chairman join me in encouraging 
the FHWA and Volpe Center to give priority consideration to continuing 
to provide staff and financial support to the RoadLIFE program to 
ensure that the results will be useful to the Nation?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I agree, the Department should give priority 
consideration to continuing of this important project.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The National Transportation Network Analysis Capability 
(NTNAC) is being developed to simulate the operation of the national 
transportation system, including individual modes--trucks, trains, 
planes, waterborne vessels--and the transportation infrastructure used 
by these carriers. Based on the technology underlying the successful 
TRANSIMS model, NTNAC is a simulation that will view the national 
transportation infrastructure as a single, integrated system. Los 
Alamos National Laboratory is the lead technical agency for this 
effort. Does the chairman agree that NTNAC could provide the DOT with 
new capabilities to assess and formulate critical policy and investment 
options that take into account transportation economics, modes, public 
safety, and environmental concerns, as well as infrastructure 
requirements and vulnerabilities?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I agree that this ongoing effort could provide DOT 
an important tool to assess the consequences of transportation policies 
before they are implemented.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Prior efforts on NTNAC have demonstrated the capability 
to model nation-wide freight transportation and provided valuable 
analytical insights into the nation's freight and transportation 
system. For example, NTNAC is currently capable of simulating the 
movement of millions of trucks across the nation's highway network from 
point-of-origin to final destination. Does the chairman

[[Page 15308]]

agree that the Department of Transportation should give priority 
consideration to providing additional funding in fiscal year 2002 to 
extend and consolidate these achievements and to move towards a full-
scale development.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree, the Department should give priority 
consideration to continuing the NTNAC project under the Transportation 
Planning, Research and Development Program.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for her fine work on 
this bill and for this opportunity to discuss these two important 
research programs in New Mexico.


                            AIRLINE INDUSTRY

  Mr. WYDEN. I would like to take a moment to talk about a 
transportation issue that is very much on the mind of many Americans as 
we head into the busy summer travel season. That issue is potentially 
unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry. My good friend 
and Pacific Northwest colleague, Senator Murray, has heard me talk 
about this before, in the context of pushing for passenger rights 
legislation. But today, I would like to talk briefly about a small step 
the government could take without enacting any new legislation. It 
wouldn't solve all the problems, but I think it would be a step in the 
right direction.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Senator Wyden has certainly been a leading and forceful 
voice for consumer protections in the airline industry. So I would be 
happy to hear his idea on this subject.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator, both for this opportunity and for all 
her hard work and leadership in crafting an excellent Transportation 
appropriations bill. The bill will do a great deal for all types of 
transportation in this country, including aviation. She has served the 
public well, as she has done throughout her service here in Congress.
  But as the Senator knows, airline travelers are frustrated. In the 
last five years, delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints have 
all risen dramatically. Earlier this year, the DOT inspector general 
reported that ``the aviation system is not working well.''
  Part of the problem is insufficient capacity. That is why I support 
efforts to increase capacity by building more runways and improving air 
traffic control. It is also why Senator Murray's efforts on the 
aviation portions of this year's are so appreciated.
  At the same time, part of the problem is that there isn't enough 
competition. Airlines too often treat consumers in ways that would not 
be tolerated for long in other industries--and the airlines get away 
with it because passengers have limited choices for air travel.
  The Department of Transportation is charged with protecting consumers 
against airlines that engage in ``unfair and deceptive'' practices. But 
the truth is, the Department of Transportation is not primarily a 
consumer protection agency. It has limited resources for this task, and 
limited experience with ``unfair and deceptive'' practice enforcement.
  The agency with the most expertise in this area is the Federal Trade 
Commission. Protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive practices 
is the FTC's bread and butter. Under existing law, the FTC cannot take 
enforcement actions against airlines. And I am not proposing to change 
that.
  However, while the FTC has no enforcement authority over airlines, 
nothing prevents it from studying and reporting on unfair practices in 
the airline industry. I believe the FTC could do a real service to the 
flying public by providing some much needed expert analysis of arguably 
unfair practices in the airline industry.
  For example, I think it would be very illuminating for the FTC to 
take a look at whether airlines tend to cancel flights simply because 
they are not sufficiently full. A movie theater doesn't cancel the 3:00 
matinee just because only a handful of people show up. But does this 
happen in the airline industry? The FTC, with its strong economic and 
investigatory staff, would be in an excellent position to get to the 
bottom of this issue.
  Let me be clear. I am not in a position to tell the FTC what to do. 
And I am not proposing to impose new requirements on them through 
legislation. I am simply saying that if the FTC chose to look into 
this, I think its conclusions would carry a lot of weight. In my 
opinion, the FTC's involvement here, on a purely investigatory basis, 
could make an important contribution to our understanding of what goes 
on in the airline industry.
  I think there is that potential. To do any really serious analysis, 
the FTC would need cooperation from the Department of Transportation 
for important data and statistics. Clearly, the sharing of data would 
be more efficient and cost effective than having the FTC try to 
duplicate all the extensive data gathering that the Department of 
Transportation has already done.
  My fear is that everything could get bogged down in institutional 
jealousies and jurisdictional squabbles. If the Department of 
Transportation chose not to cooperate, the FTC's effort would be slowed 
tremendously or even stalled entirely.
  The good news is, I don't see any legitimate reason why the 
Department of Transportation shouldn't cooperate. As chair of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, is the Senator aware of 
anything in this year's funding bill or in any other law governing the 
Department that would prevent it from cooperating, in the event that 
FTC chose to pursue one or more airline-related investigations?
  Mrs. MURRAY. No, I agree with the Senator that the Department of 
Transportation would be free to cooperate.
  Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate that response, and I heartily agree. If I 
could just briefly sum up my point here, it is that if the FTC decides 
to investigate airline practices--which it can already do under current 
law--I believe it could do an important service. And I wouldn't want 
lack of cooperation from the Department of Transportation to stand in 
the way.
  I thank my friend from Washington for her attention.


                  approach lighting system improvement

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that the Senate 
Transportation appropriations bill has included a provision which makes 
$33,331,000 available for the Approach Lighting System Improvement 
Program (ALSIP). I thank my colleague from Washington, the chair of the 
Subcommittee, Mrs. Murray for her help in securing this funding.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct, $33,331,000 is available for 
ALSIP.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The language on page 51 of the Senate Report (107-38) 
does not specify that the funding that is made available is provided 
both for the installation of the previously purchased medium approach 
lighting systems with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) and for 
future procurement, so as to keep the production line operational. I 
would like to ask for clarification: is money in this account to be 
used both for installation and procurement?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I hope that language to this effect can be included in 
the conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will look to clarify this in the final language.


   section 315 (gp) and air traffic congestion in the chicago region

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I believe the chairwoman and ranking member 
are aware of the air traffic congestion and capacity issues facing the 
Chicago area. Not only are these important issues for the national 
aviation system, but for the greater Chicagoland area as well. I thank 
the chairwoman and the ranking member for the attention given to this 
regional and national dilemma.
  As you know, the Chicago area desperately needs additional airport 
capacity. I believe the Gary/Chicago Airport is capable of immediately 
providing the capacity needed to relieve Chicago's O'Hare and Midway 
Airports. I continue my longstanding support for the Gary/Chicago 
Airport as an integral part of the solution to meet the air traffic 
needs of the region.
  I am working closely with my colleagues Senator Lugar, Congressman 
Visclosky in the House of Representatives, Indiana Governor Frank 
O'Bannon, and with local officials in

[[Page 15309]]

Indiana to ensure that the Gary/Chicago Airport is included in any 
discussions at the federal level about how to relieve air traffic 
congestion in the Chicago region.
  Section 315 (General Provisions) requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to work with the Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA) to 
encourage a locally developed and executed plan between the State of 
Illinois, the City of Chicago, and affected communities for the purpose 
of modernizing O'Hare International Airport. It is my hope that any 
discussions in Congress, at the FAA, or elsewhere, include Indiana and 
the Gary/Chicago Airport as a part of the solution to this crisis.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the attention the 
Appropriations Committee has given to this important issue. I join with 
my colleague from Indiana Senator Bayh in sharing with the committee 
our thoughts about section 315 of the bill. I hope the committee will 
be mindful of our strong interest in this issue, and that we believe 
Indiana should be specifically listed and included in any matters or 
discussions relating to federal proposals or legislation intended to 
relieve air traffic in the Chicago region.
  The Chicago region needs additional airport capacity and some of this 
capacity can be accommodated at the Gary/Chicago Airport. Throughout my 
service in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of the Gary/
Chicago Airport as a viable part of the solution that will help meet 
the current pressing air traffic needs of the region.
  Earlier this year, the Gary Airport submitted to the FAA a draft of 
its phase II20-year master plan/airport layout plan. This effort 
proposes an expansion of existing airport facilities, including 
navigational improvements, runway extensions and construction of 
parallel runway. I strongly support the airport's plan for future 
growth and believe this master plan is an essential part of the 
solution to helping relieve air traffic congestion now and in the long 
term. It is especially important to keep in mind that the Gary/Chicago 
Airport today is an active, fully operational aviation facility with a 
7,000 foot main runway and a crosswind runway that can help provide 
immediate relief to the problem of aviation congestion in the Chicago 
region.
  On June 12, I hosted a meeting in Washington with Transportation 
Secretary Mineta and was joined by my colleagues Senator Bayh and 
Representative Visclosky, along with Indiana Governor O'Bannon and Gary 
Mayor King. During this productive and positive meeting, we emphasized 
to Transportation Secretary Mineta our strong and unified support for 
the master plan/ALP submitted by the Gary/Chicago Airport that is 
currently being evaluated by the FAA. We specifically requested 
Secretary Mineta's assistance in ensuring that Gary's master plan/ALP 
receive full and fair consideration, and that the FAA work to expedite 
their consideration of Gary's plan. We hope Gary's master plan/ALP will 
be approved by the FAA this year.
  The problem of air congestion in the Chicago region and the urgent 
need for relief should be national priorities. I believe that existing, 
operating, regional airport facilities such as the Gary/Chicago Airport 
should be included as part of both short-term and long-term solutions 
to this aviation safety and public transportation challenge. I wish to 
thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their attention to our 
concerns about this important matter.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the committee is aware of the Senator's 
strong interest in making sure that Indiana is a part of these 
important discussions, and the committee agrees that the Gary/Chicago 
Airport should be specifically included as part of federal 
deliberations concerning air traffic congestion in the Chicago region.


                        san bernardino metrolink

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with the chairman and ranking 
member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss a 
transportation infrastructure project that is of great importance to 
the southern California region.
  I want to first, however, thank Chairman Murray and Senator Shelby 
for their outstanding work on this bill. The fiscal year 2002 
Transportation Appropriations bill provides appropriations for 
important transportation and transit projects in the State of 
California and the rest of the nation. The transportation needs in 
California alone are tremendous. I understand the difficulty you faced 
in trying to meet as many of these needs as possible under tight budget 
constraints.
  I am concerned, however, that this is an important California project 
that was not funded--the Metrolink's double track project on the San 
Bernardino line.
  Mr. SHELBY. The committee is aware of this project. It is my 
understanding that as one of the fastest growing commuter rail systems 
in the country, Metrolink is integral to the commuting requirements of 
the citizens of the Los Angeles basin. It provides service to Orange, 
Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Diego 
Counties.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Metrolink has received appropriations in each of the 
past 2 fiscal years. A local match of 70 percent is already in place, 
representing a substantial local and state commitment to the project. I 
understand the Senator from California's concern over this project and 
I will continue to work with her to try to determine whether funding 
can be made available for this project.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
understanding and willingness to work with me on this project. The 
Metrolink system is quickly reaching capacity. With continued federal 
support, it will be able to meet the growing demands for its service, 
while reducing congestion and improving the air quality of southern 
California.


 funding to improve the highway system of aroostook county in northern 
                                 maine

  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations for providing needed 
funding for projects of great importance to Maine. My senior colleague 
from our great State and I would like to engage you in a brief colloquy 
about one such project--the improvement of the highway system in 
northern Maine. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 
Transportation appropriations bill sets aside $6 million to help us 
move forward extending Maine's highway system beyond the termination 
point of Interstate 95 in Houlton. Having been born and raised in 
northern Maine I can tell you first hand about the critical importance 
to that region's economy of improving the highway system of Aroostook 
County.
  Ms. SNOWE. As Senator Collins expressed, your efforts on behalf of 
our State are deeply appreciated. We are committed to improving the 
highway system in Aroostook County and therefore welcome your support 
for this project. Interstate 95's current termination point is more 
than one hundred miles away from Maine's northern-most communities, 
which inhibits their ability to interact and to transact with the rest 
of the State and beyond.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We are well aware of the importance of this project to 
the State of Maine and are pleased to provide support.
  Ms. COLLINS. We would respectfully ask that you make every effort to 
retain the $6 million earmark in the conference on your bill with the 
House of Representatives, so that these funds can be used next year to 
cover engineering, construction, and planning costs associated with 
enhancing the highway system in northern Maine.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I can assure you that I will keep your concerns in mind 
as we go to conference with the House.
  Mr. SHELBY. And I provide you similar assurances of support for your 
project, as you have described it, during the conference on the 
Transportation appropriations bill.
  Ms. SNOWE. We very much appreciate your willingness to advocate on 
our behalf, and on behalf of our State. The $6 million will be a 
critical down-payment on this ambitious project.


                Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Project

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my

[[Page 15310]]

distinguished colleague from Washington, the chairwoman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. The purpose is to 
discuss an important initiative in the State of Minnesota, the 
Northstar Corridor. I would also like to thank the chairwoman and the 
subcommittee for providing funding to support several projects in my 
state including the Hiawatha Corridor, the Minnesota Valley Regional 
Rail Authority, the Phalen Boulevard, Trunk Highway 610/10, as well as 
bus procurement for the Metro Transit and Greater Minnesota Transit 
Authorities.
  As my colleague knows, many regions of our country are experiencing 
significant growth. This is true for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area 
in Minnesota. In order to help commuters and reduce congestion in the 
North metro area, the Northstar Corridor project has been undertaken by 
local authorities to provide commuter rail service between Minneapolis 
and St. Cloud. This project is one of the corridors included in the 
comprehensive Twin Cities Transitways Project to provide much needed 
light rail and commuter rail services in the region.
  Specifically, the Northstar Corridor, which was authorized in TEA-21, 
will provide a direct connection between two major regional centers for 
business, education and health care. The 80-mile commuter rail line 
will operate on existing BNSF track. The Northstar Corridor has been 
identified by both the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the 
Twin Cities Metropolitan Council as the highest priority corridor for 
implementation of commuter rail in the state. While the bill before us 
contains significant funding for new start construction projects under 
the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Authority, including the 
Hiawatha light rail corridor in Minneapolis, funding was not included 
for the Northstar Corridor. However, H.R. 2299 does include $10 million 
for the Northstar Corridor. This funding will support right of way 
acquisition, final design and engineering of stations, vehicles, 
capacity improvements to existing track and maintenance facility. I 
would seek my colleague's assurance that during consideration of the 
conference report on the FY 2002 Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill, that she would be supportive of the Northstar 
Corridor commuter rail project.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am aware of the Twin cities Transitways Project and I 
am pleased that this bill includes $50 million to support the Hiawatha 
Corridor. While the subcommittee was unable to provide funding for the 
Northstar Corridor initiative, we will give that project consideration 
when we go to the conference committee with the House on the FY 2002 
Department of Transportation Appropriations bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for her work as chairwoman and 
for her support for the Northstar Corridor.


                         michigan itcs project

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee. As the chairwoman knows, since Fiscal Year 1996, the 
Congress has appropriated a total of $13 million for the Michigan 
Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) Project, a public--private 
partnership to develop, test, prove and demonstrate an advanced 
positive train control system on a portion of the Detroit--Chicago rail 
corridor between Kalamazoo and Porter, Michigan to provide high speed 
rail operations. The Michigan ITCS project focuses on upgrading the 
existing wayside signal system to facilitate passenger train speeds in 
excess of 80 miles per hour, while still controlling freight trains 
that move at slower speeds.
  The administration's Fiscal Year 2002 DOT Budget proposal provides 
that $3 million of funding provided for ``high speed train control 
systems'' under the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program be 
allocated to the Michigan ITCS Project, which is entering its final 
phase. In the bill before us, a total of $11 million is provided for 
``high speed train control systems'' with $5 million of those funds 
allocated to a PTC project in Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask 
distinguished chairwoman to give this important project consideration 
in conference, and provide $3 million for the final phase of Michigan 
ITCS project, consistent with the administration's budget request. Any 
consideration that the distinguished chairwoman can provide is much 
appreciated.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in urging 
you to give this worthy project consideration in conference. The 
Detroit-Chicago Corridor has been designated as one of only ten high-
speed rail corridors in the nation. In order to make that designation a 
reality we must develop the necessary technology to allow high-speed 
rail to operate safely on existing infrastructure. That means 
completing the development of an effective train control system. This 
project, as a public-private partnership, has had the ongoing 
participation and support from the State of Michigan, the Federal 
Railroad Administration, Amtrak and Harmon Industries, the company 
developing the technology. It also has the support of Michigan's two 
Senators and I hope we can find a way to continue Federal support for 
this project.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators from 
Michigan, and I will be happy to work with her in conference on this 
important Michigan ITCS project.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the 
subcommittee.


                     federal highway administration

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to engage the esteemed Chair of 
the Senate Transportation Subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding a 
recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) interpretative memorandum.
  FHWA, in response to a legitimate concern about maintaining the 
uniformity of the signs on our nation's highways, has issued a 
memorandum proscribing restrictions for the text of signs used in state 
Adopt-A-Highway programs.
  FHWA's intention, I believe, is a good one--to prevent the 
commercialization of our nation's relatively uniform interstate highway 
signs. It might amuse my colleague's to know that uniformity is the 
result of very serious tome entitled the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices, or ``MUCTDA'' as some call it.
  Despite its funny name, MUCTDA represents sound public policy. Since 
the inception of Adopt-A-Highway programs, several participating states 
have referred to MUCTDA's section 2D-47, when trying to determine how 
to appropriately recognize the roadway sponsor on Adopt-A-Highway 
signs.
  This section states that ``messages, symbols, and trademarks that 
resemble any official traffic control device shall not be used on 
Adopt-A-Highway signs.'' This implies that other logos which do not 
resemble official traffic control devices are acceptable.
  The recent interpretive memorandum, however, says that all logos 
constitute advertising and, as such, Adopt-A-Highway signs with any 
logos must come down.
  This is extremely problematic for New York, which has awarded over 
$26 million in Adopt-A-Highway contracts since 1996. Without the 
ability to post any logos, both corporate and non-corporate sponsors 
will end their involvement. This could undermine a great deal of 
progress we have made in keeping New York's roadways clean and safe.
  In short, this interpretive memorandum could completely hobble the 
Adopt-A-Highway program in my state and in others, which I am sure is 
not FHWA's intent.
  I am not trying to block FHWA from proscribing regulations pertaining 
to Adopt-A-Highway signage, but I do believe that the affected states 
should be consulted first because so much revenue for maintaining 
highways is at stake.
  As the Senator prepares for conference committee deliberations I hope 
she will agree that FHWA has an obligation to work with the affected 
states to find some resolution to this Adopt-A-Highway signage issue 
because this interpretative memorandum appears to change FHWA's policy 
at mid-course.

[[Page 15311]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with the Senator from New York that FHWA should 
engage the state transportation departments to find some resolution 
that provides for a uniform national policy without, if possible, 
unnecessarily jeopardizing existing Adopt-A-Highway contracts.


                       new starts transit program

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the fact that 
the bill pending before us provides an additional $100 million for the 
New Starts transit program above the amount guaranteed in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This is a 
critically important investment in our nation's transportation 
infrastructure which will ultimately provide more transportation 
options for all Americans.
  All across the country, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll 
in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal 
frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 1999, 
Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.5 billion hours stuck in traffic, 
with an estimated cost to the nation of $78 billion in lost time and 
wasted fuel. And the problem is growing.
  In response, Americans are searching for alternatives. According to 
the American Public Transportation Association, Americans took over 9.4 
billion trips on transit in 2000--the highest level in 40 years. In 
fact, over the past five years, transit ridership has increased by 21 
percent, growing more than four times faster than the U.S. population. 
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.
  When Congress passed TEA-21 in 1998, we made a significant commitment 
to supporting communities' public transportation investments. TEA-21 
authorized almost $8.2 billion over six years to fund new rail 
projects; $6 billion of that amount was guaranteed.
  In the years since TEA-21's passage, it has become clear that 
communities' need for New Starts funding has grown even faster than 
anticipated in 1998. Yet the program has consistently been funded only 
at the guaranteed level, leaving the remaining authorization 
unutilized. Now, for the first time, the Appropriations Committee has 
provided funding for New Starts above the amount guaranteed by TEA-21, 
appropriating $100 million of the $430 million non-guaranteed 
authorization. I commend the Committee for taking this step toward 
addressing the growing need for transit funds within TEA-21's statutory 
framework.
  Increased investment in transit will ultimately benefit all 
Americans. For example, as cities and towns across America are 
discovering, public transit can stimulate the economic life of any 
community. Studies have shown that a nearby transit station increases 
the value of local businesses and real estate. Increased property 
values mean more tax revenues to states and local jurisdictions; new 
business development around a transit station means more jobs. 
Moreover, I believe the potential of mass transit to help address our 
nation's current energy crunch has been consistently overlooked. With 
gas prices soaring and congestion increasing, public transit offers one 
of the best solutions to America's growing pains.
  I am gratified to see that the Appropriations Committee has 
recognized the strong demand for transit in communities across the 
country by funding the New Starts program above the guaranteed level. 
This is an important first step toward addressing America's long-term 
transportation needs.


                 PORTS TO PLAINS HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly engage the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee on a transportation issue important to the State of 
Colorado.
  The Ports to Plains High Priority Corridor is a most pressing issue 
for my state, however, I have concerns about language currently in the 
Transportation Appropriations bill. As it stands, the bill contains a 
$1 million feasibility study for a section of the corridor on US 64/87 
in New Mexico.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would say to the Senator from Colorado that I am 
certainly aware of the issues surrounding the Ports to Plains corridor 
and I understand his concerns.
  Mr. ALLARD. I appreciate that. As the Senator knows the states of 
Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Colorado have been engaged for several 
years now in determining the best route for this TEA-21 authorized 
trade corridor. Just last week, the Colorado Transportation Commission 
voted unanimously for designation of the Eastern Colorado route from 
the Oklahoma panhandle to Denver via US 287. A feasibility study for a 
New Mexico section of this route would clearly send a signal that 
Congress intends to legislate that the corridor be routed up Interstate 
25 into Denver.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to add a similar resolution passed by the 
Oklahoma Transportation Commission also supports US 287 as the 
preferred route to Denver, CO. I think it should also be noted that the 
Texas Department of Transportation has indicated that it would defer to 
Colorado to negotiate the alignment of the northern section of the 
corridor. I share the concerns of the Senator from Colorado about a New 
Mexico feasibility study.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his support. We 
understand the wishes of our friends in New Mexico. However, we feel 
that the overwhelming support for the US 287 route coupled with the 
massive opposition in Colorado to encouraging any further traffic on 
Interstate 25 simply needs to be heard. Further, the existence of the 
Camino Real High Priority Corridor on Interstate 25 should be taken 
into account--allowing another High Priority Corridor on already-
congested Interstate 25 just doesn't make sense. It should be noted 
that many of the high population centers along Interstate 25 south of 
Denver have made their opposition to the corridor well known. Those 
along US 287 in Eastern Colorado have made their support equally as 
well known.
  In fact, just this week, the four states got together one more time 
and have been able to iron out a compromise that accommodates all 
parties. Allowing this feasibility study to stay in the bill would 
further complicate and delay a process that is clearly working.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would say to the Senators from Colorado and Oklahoma 
that I am certainly aware of the actions of the states on this and I 
would agree that their views are of utmost importance in any final 
designation. I would share with the Senators that I am hesitant for the 
Congress to designate routes when the process among the States to 
determine the corridor's working toward conclusion.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the distinguished Ranking Member and 
I agree that we will need to address this in the joint Senate-House 
Conference Committee.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would concur with the Chairman and would say that it is 
my intent as well to minimize or eliminate Congressional involvement in 
this issue at this time.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senators for their interest in working with 
us on this issue. I look forward to the conference committee's outcome.


                   air traffic instructional services

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Federal Aviation Administration 
operates a critical program of proficiency and developmental training 
for air traffic controllers. It has been demonstrated that this 
training reduces operational errors and makes the skies safer for the 
flying public. Over the past several years the Senate Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee has required that the Federal Aviation 
Administration spend its appropriated funds on the Air Traffic 
Instructional Services, or ATIS, program and not reprogram these funds 
to other accounts without approval of the subcommittee. This has worked 
well in the past and has insured proper expenditure of these funds.
  I hope this support for the ATIS program will continue in fiscal year 
2002. Is it your understanding that the operational account of the FAA 
fully funds the budget request for the ATIS program? Do you agree that 
these funds

[[Page 15312]]

are to be spent only on this account unless expressly approved by the 
Subcommittee?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. It 
is my intention to continue to press for full funding of the ATIS 
program in conference committee deliberations with the House. It should 
also be known that the subcommittee believes that full funding for ATIS 
is critical to the safety of our airways and that any reprogramming by 
the FAA should be done only after consultation with the subcommittee.


                    tennessee public transportation

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation Appropriations for their efforts in securing the 5309 
appropriations for public transportation in our state of Tennessee. Our 
state's public transit programs historically have not received the 
necessary federal funding critical to supply invaluable services to the 
people of Tennessee. Our state is one of only five in the nation that 
provides public transportation to citizens in each county, with eleven 
rural and twelve urban transit systems servicing all 95 counties. To 
fund this effort and compensate for lower federal funding in recent 
years, it is my hope that the Conference Committee will recognize that 
the $12 million funding level recommended by the House is fully justify 
for public transportation initiatives in Tennessee. I have shared my 
concerns with Senators Murray and Shelby about the importance of 
effective transit programs in a growing state like ours and I hope that 
my friends will do all that they can to ensure that Tennessee's public 
transportation system will be provided $12 million in federal funding 
when the Conference Committee convenes. Again let me reiterate my 
appreciation to the Chairwoman and Ranking Member. I look forward to 
working with both of you on this issue.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I strongly support the words of my good 
friend and colleague from Tennessee. I, too, would like to thank 
Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Shelby for their leadership on the 
Transportation Subcommittee. I give my full support to developing 
effective public transportation programs that serve the needs of all 
Tennesseans. Our public transit systems have not historically seen the 
level of federal support they need to develop properly. As our cities 
grow and our transportation needs change 279 active urban transit buses 
now exceed their 12-year useful service life. Additionally, there are 
218 rural transit vans with mileage in excess of the 100,000-mile 
service life. The $12 million funding level provided in the House will 
improve public safety and reduce maintenance costs while ensuring that 
an adequate infrastructure is in place to better serve all the counties 
of our growing state. It is my sincere hope that the Conference 
Committee will restore the full funding level recommended by the House.
  Mr. FRIST. I would like to echo the sentiment of my friend and 
colleague and reiterate the need to develop and expand public 
transportation services in our state. The federal contribution to these 
services has been low for some time. I look forward to working with the 
Conference Committee to act in the interests of those who depend upon 
efficient public transportation by providing the full $12 million, as 
provided by the House.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his work on 
this issue of great importance to thousands of our constituents. I 
eagerly await with him for action by the Conference Committee.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I have duly noted the concerns of my friends from 
Tennessee and look forward to working with them on this issue.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for raising their 
concerns and I also will work with my friends from Tennessee to address 
their concerns during conference.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank my friends and colleagues. Mr. President, I yield 
the balance of my time.


                     Essential Air Service Program

  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for working closely with 
me and Senator Collins on projects of importance to our state, as well 
as critical national priorities. Your efforts are very much 
appreciated. As you know, one issue of great importance to my home 
state of Maine, as a rural state with many small, remote communities, 
is the U.S. Department of Transportation Essential Air Service--EAS--
program. Air service in rural areas is not simply a luxury, it is an 
imperative. Any municipality or small business owner will tell that 
without quality, affordable air service, economic development is 
virtually impossible. The EAS program is designed to ensure that small 
communities that were served by commercial air carriers prior to 
deregulation maintain scheduled air service. Today, the EAS program 
serves over 80 rural communities nationwide. The reality of deregulated 
air service is that four of Maine's six commercial airports--including 
the State Capital's airport in Augusta--rely on EAS to have any service 
to all. Unfortunately, the Administration has proposed a change in the 
eligibility criteria for the program which would result in the 
elimination of air service to a number of rural communities nationwide, 
including Augusta.
  Ms. COLLINS. I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee as well, and would like to add 
to what my colleague from Maine has said regarding the EAS program, 
which is so critical in Maine. The EAS program sustains important 
economic, social, and quality of life benefits for the rural 
communities it serves. In Maine's case, Augusta, Maine, the State of 
Capital, would lose air service. Commercial air service in our Capital 
is absolutely crucial. Loss of service would undermine the region's 
economy and hinder the operation of the State government.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am aware of your concern and I can assure you that 
during the Senate-House conference on this bill, we will keep your 
views in mind.
  Mr. SHELBY. Likewise, I am well aware of your support for the 
program, and I know how important it is to rural areas including the 
community of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. I will work with the Chair during 
the conference to address the concerns you have raised.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your willingness to 
address this important matter. We look forward to working with you as 
the appropriations process continues.
  Mrs. SNOWE. Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for 
its strong support and its willingness to make an effort to address 
issues of concern to rural states like Maine. Thank you both very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on the bill be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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 the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2299), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________