[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16] [Senate] [Pages 23698-23703] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: The committee conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2084) have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of September 30, 1999.) Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I am pleased that today the Senate has the opportunity to consider the conference agreement for the Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, and expect that we will reinforce the Senate's strong support for this legislation, which was passed just 18 days ago by a vote of 95 to 0. The Transportation Appropriations bill provides more than $50 billion for [[Page 23699]] transportation infrastructure funding, and for safe travel and transportation in the air and on our nation's highways, railroads, coasts and rivers. I am pleased that we have reached an accommodation between the House and the Senate Conferees on the Transportation appropriations bill. The House didn't win on every issue, the Senate didn't win on every issue, the Administration didn't get everything that they wanted--there was a fair amount of give and take on the part of all interested parties and I am confident that the result is a balanced package that is responsive to the priorities of the Congress and of the administration. The 302(b) allocation was tight and constrained our ability to do some things that I would have liked to do-- but we have stayed within the allocation agreed to by the House and the Senate and we have a bill that the Administration will sign. I believe this bill represents a balanced approach and a model for how appropriations bills should be constructed. It stays within the allocation, it stays pretty close to the budget request with the exception of denying new user fee taxes and making some firewall shifts that the authorizing committee objected to, it adheres to the commitment made in TEA-21 on dedicated funding for Highways and Transit, it provides adequate--but constrained--levels for FAA, it maintains a credible Coast Guard capital base and operational tempo, and it continues to focus on making further strides in increasing the safety of all our transportation systems. At the same time, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Sabo, the senior Senator from New Jersey and I have gone to great lengths to craft a bill that accommodates the requests of members and funds their priorities. Scarcely a day passes where one member or another does not call, write, or collar me on the floor to advocate for a project, a program, or a particular transportation priority for their state. I received over 1,500 separate Senate requests in letter form over the last six months. This bill attempts to respond to as many of those requests as possible. As many of you know, the current fiscal constraints were especially felt in the transit account, where demand for mass transit systems is growing in every state, but funding is fixed by the TEA-21 firewall. I won't belabor that point other than to say we did the best we could under very difficult circumstances. It has been a constant challenge this year to ensure adequate funding for FAA operations, facilities, equipment and research, and for the Airport Improvement Program; for the Coast Guard operations and capital accounts; and for operating funds for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. This clearly illustrates the pitfalls of firewalls and the disadvantages of trying to manage annual outlays in multi-year authorization legislation. Our experience this year with this bill is one of many reasons the Congress should reject a proposal to establish more budgetary firewalls around trust fund accounts in the future. I want to mention one other issue that has been the topic of many conversations over the past couple of weeks. That is, the Senate provision concerning the release of personal information by state departments of motor vehicles. My concern is that private information is too available. The proliferation of information over the Internet makes it easy and cheap for almost anyone to access very personal information. I think members would be shocked by what virtually anyone--including wierdos or stalkers--can find out about you, your wife, or your children with only a rudimentary knowledge of how to search the Internet. I believe that there should be a presumption that personal information will be kept confidential, unless there is compelling state need to disclose that information. Most states, however, readily make this information available, and because states sell this information, a lot of information about you effectively comes from public records. Section 350 of the conference protects personal information from broad distribution by requiring express consent prior to the release of information in two situations. First, individuals must give their consent before a state is able to release photographs, social security numbers, and medical or disability information. Of course, this excludes law enforcement and others acting on behalf of the government. Second, individuals must give their consent before the state can sell or release other personal information when that information is disseminated for the purpose of direct marketing or solicitations. I want to be clear: this applies only when the state sells your name, address, and other such information to people who are using that information for marketing purposes. We recognize that states may need time to comply with this provision. And we've proposed to delay the effective date 9 months. In addition, there was concern expressed about this provision being tied to transportation funds under this bill, and the conference agreement eliminates the sanction language and expressly states that no states' fund may be withheld because of non-compliance with this provision. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has performed a cost estimate analysis of this provision, and found that the total implementation cost for States is well below $50 million nationally. I believe that the general public would be as shocked as my colleagues in the Senate if they learned that states were running a business with the personal information from motor vehicle records. There are a few people I would particularly like to thank before we vote. My Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, has been a valued partner in this process, and I'm sorry that we only have one more year to do this together. Senators Stevens and Byrd have provided guidance throughout the year, and made a successful bill possible by ensuring an adequate allocation for transportation programs. My House counterpart, Congressman Frank Wolf and his staff: John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta and Linda Muir, have been professional, accommodating, and collegial. This last week has been a blueprint for how conference negotiations should be conducted. Senator Lott and his staff have been gracious and extremely helpful in moving this legislation forward. And on the Appropriations Committee staff, I want to recognize Steve Cortese and Jay Kimmitt for their invaluable assistance and advice. I look forward to passing this bill and sending it to the President. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from OMB relating to this conference report be printed in the Congressional Record at the end of my remarks and after the table regarding federal highway aid. From the OMB letter, it is my expectation that the President will sign the bill in its current form. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to include the following table for the Record which shows the estimated fiscal year 2000 distribution of Federal highway fund obligational authority. This table illustrates the state-by-state distribution of non-discretionary highway funds under the conference agreement. It is important to note that none of the discretionary programs, including public lands highways, Indian reservation roads, park roads and parkways, or discretionary bridge are included in this distribution, as these funds are granted on an individual application basis. In addition, these figures do not include the carryover balances from prior years, the final computation of administrative takedown, or the final minimum guarantee adjustments. However, these figures are very close to the actual state distribution that will be made by the Federal Highway Administration based on the agreement outlined in the conference report. [[Page 23700]] There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--ESTIMATED FY 2000 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY (INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION OF RABA UNDER CONFERENCE PROPOSAL AND DISTRIBUTION OF $98.5 MILLION IN ADMINISTRATIVE TAKEDOWN FUNDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Formula obligation Exempt minimum RABA conference States limitation guarantee Subtotal proposal Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama............................................. $471,711,405 $11,367,974 $483,079,379 $29,016,764 $512,096,143 Alaska.............................................. 268,677,889 21,022,139 289,700,028 16,970,939 306,670,967 Arizona............................................. 375,629,521 14,116,557 389,746,078 23,285,789 413,031,867 Arkansas............................................ 380,148,116 8,870,348 317,018,464 19,016,257 336,034,721 California.......................................... 2,135,937,494 41,571,122 2,177,508,616 131,247,260 2,308,755,876 Colorado............................................ 271,325,228 5,218,128 276,543,356 16,673,553 293,216,909 Connecticut......................................... 347,917,991 15,458,380 363,376,371 21,631,767 385,008,138 Delaware............................................ 102,256,467 2,516,824 104,773,291 6,301,112 111,074,403 Dist. of Col........................................ 92,495,095 99,255 92,594,350 5,634,683 98,229,033 Florida............................................. 1,065,315,963 49,989,815 1,115,305,778 66,321,154 1,181,626,932 Georgia............................................. 828,256,118 32,991,973 861,248,091 51,375,336 912,623,427 Hawaii.............................................. 119,530,218 3,358,725 122,888,943 7,374,632 130,263,575 Idaho............................................... 178,383,500 6,424,871 184,808,371 11,043,615 195,851,986 Illinois............................................ 785,605,674 12,083,474 797,689,148 48,176,561 845,865,709 Indiana............................................. 579,109,909 21,891,566 601,001,475 35,894,907 636,896,382 Iowa................................................ 279,429,622 3,744,432 283,174,054 17,121,381 300,295,435 Kansas.............................................. 273,194,168 2,007,662 275,201,830 16,691,012 291,892,842 Kentucky............................................ 401,970,692 10,003,210 411,973,902 24,735,491 436,709,393 Louisiana........................................... 391,418,740 11,102,273 402,521,013 24,151,481 426,672,494 Maine............................................... 123,317,168 2,925,145 126,242,313 7,592,996 133,835,309 Maryland............................................ 367,510,492 7,464,568 374,975,060 22,588,127 397,563,187 Massachusetts....................................... 436,472,391 7,583,988 444,056,379 26,790,453 470,846,832 Michigan............................................ 744,199,500 23,383,006 767,582,506 45,987,032 813,569,538 Minnesota........................................... 347,863,427 6,266,043 354,129,470 21,358,519 375,487,413 Mississippi......................................... 282,518,602 5,567,485 288,086,087 17,358,519 305,444,606 Missouri............................................ 569,625,340 12,728,657 582,353,997 35,047,859 617,401,856 Montana............................................. 227,145,762 10,546,766 237,692,528 14,140,666 251,833,194 Nebraska............................................ 180,760,739 1,864,558 182,625,297 11,062,788 193,688,085 Nevada.............................................. 166,699,784 5,948,338 172,648,122 10,323,779 182,971,901 New Hampshire....................................... 120,134,397 3,111,027 123,245,424 7,402,980 130,648,404 New Jersey.......................................... 598,730,322 11,286,798 610,017,120 36,776,405 646,793,525 New Mexico.......................................... 227,824,334 7,169,730 234,994,064 14,079,572 249,073,636 New York............................................ 1,194,894,120 28,056,993 1,222,951,113 73,547,672 1,296,498,785 North Carolina...................................... 651,657,222 22,361,073 674,018,295 40,308,266 714,326,561 North Dakota........................................ 151,554,823 3,564,655 155,119,478 9,333,524 164,453,002 Ohio................................................ 859,342,925 22,507,807 881,850,732 52,959,163 934,809,895 Oklahoma............................................ 359,066,919 7,361,168 366,428,087 22,076,510 388,504,597 Oregon.............................................. 289,181,685 3,630,769 292,812,454 17,707,362 310,519,816 Pennsylvania........................................ 1,174,935,166 20,690,226 1,195,625,392 72,033,420 1,267,658,812 Rhode Island........................................ 37,789,794 4,921,466 142,711,260 8,533,831 151,245,091 South Carolina...................................... 368,700,588 13,940,670 382,641,258 22,853,717 405,494,975 South Dakota........................................ 169,007,946 4,237,330 173,245,276 10,411,545 183,656,821 Tennessee........................................... 533,893,724 12,450,474 546,344,198 32,831,373 579,175,871 Texas............................................... 1,736,180,606 64,627,615 1,800,808,221 107,594,447 1,908,402,668 Utah................................................ 181,553,286 3,552,164 185,105,450 11,156,019 196,261,469 Vermont............................................. 105,918,243 2,146,701 108,064,944 6,512,509 114,577,453 Virginia............................................ 592,611,780 16,373,740 608,985,520 36,550,515 645,536,035 Washington.......................................... 423,671,200 6,405,044 430,076,244 25,978,168 456,054,412 West Virginia....................................... 264,443,795 2,590,550 267,034,345 16,126,281 283,160,262 Wisconsin........................................... 458,224,706 16,164,680 474,389,386 28,368,743 502,758,129 Wyoming............................................. 161,572,167 3,732,038 165,304,205 9,947,966 175,252,171 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 23,483,316,763 639,000,000 24,122,316,763 1,448,003,841 25,570,320,604 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, September 29, 1999. Hon. Richard C. Shelby, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to provide the Administration's views on the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2000, as passed by the House and by the Senate. As the conferees develop a final version of the bill, we ask you to consider the Administration's views. The Administration appreciates the House and Senate's efforts to accommodate many of the Administration's priorities within their 302(b) allocations and the difficult choices made necessary by those allocations. However, the allocations of discretionary resources available under the Congressional Budget Resolution are simply inadequate to make the necessary investments that our citizens need and expect. The President's FY 2000 Budget proposes levels of discretionary spending that meet such needs while conforming to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement by making savings proposals in mandatory and other programs available to help finance this spending. Congress has approved and the President has signed into law nearly $29 billion of such offsets in appropriations legislation since 1995. The Administration urges the Congress to consider other, similar proposals as the FY 2000 appropriations process moves forward. With respect to this bill in particular, the Administration urges the Congress to consider the President's proposals for user fees. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill raise serious funding concerns. First, both versions of the bill underfund the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) operations and modernization programs, reduce highway and motor carrier safety, and underfund other important programs. The conferees could partially accommodate the funding increases recommended below for these programs by adhering more closely to the President's requests for the Airport Improvement Program, High Speed Rail, Coast Guard Alteration of Bridges, Coast Guard capital improvements, and other programs. In addition, both the House and Senate have reduced requested funding for important safety, mobility, and environmental requirements. The Administration proposes to meet these requirements through the reallocation of a portion of the increased spending resulting from higher-than- anticipated highway excise tax revenues. Under this proposal, every State would still receive at least as much funding as was assumed when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was enacted. The conferees are encouraged to consider the Administration's proposal as a means to fund these important priorities. The Administration's specific concerns with both the House and Senate versions of the bill are discussed below. aviation safety and modernization The funding provided by the House and the Senate is not sufficient to meet the rising demand for air traffic services. The Administration strongly urges the conferees to fully fund the President's request for FAA Operations. The request consists of $5,958 million to maintain current operations and $81 million to meet increased air traffic and safety demands. Neither bill provides sufficient resources to maintain current service levels, let alone meet increased demands. The Administration urges the conferees to provide at least the House level for the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account. The Senate reduction, including the rescission, would seriously compromise the FAA's ability to modernize the air traffic control system. At the Senate level, safety and security projects would be delayed or canceled, and critically-needed capacity enhancing projects would be postponed, increasing future air travel delays. In addition, the conferees are urged to provide the requested $17 [[Page 23701]] million in critically-needed funds for implementation of a Global Positioning System (GPS) modernization plan to help enable transition to a more efficient, GPS-based air navigation system. This is a top priority, and the conferees are asked to fund this in addition to the FAA's other capital needs. The Administration supports the decision, in both Houses, to eliminate the General Fund subsidy for FAA Operations and urges the conferees to enact the Administration's proposal to finance the agency. Such a system would improve the FAA's efficiency and effectiveness by creating new incentives for it to operate in a business-like manner. cafe standards The Administration strongly opposes, and urges the conferees to drop, the House bill's prohibition of work on the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. These standards have resulted in a doubling of the fuel economy of the car fleet, saving the Nation billions of gallons of oil and the consumer billions of dollars. Because prohibitions such as this have been enacted in recent years, the Department of Transportation has been unable to analyze this important issue fully. These prohibitions have limited the availability of important information that directly influences the Nation's environment. livability programs The Administration is very disappointed that both versions of the bill fund transit formula grants at $212 million below the President's request and the Transportation and Community and Preservation Pilot Program at approximately $24 million below the request. Further, the Administration is disappointed that the House bill does not direct additional funding to the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program. These programs are important components of the Administration's efforts to provide communities with the tools and resources needed to combat congestion, air pollution and sprawl. The Administration also objects to the addition of unrequested and unreviewed projects within the Transportation and Community and Privatization Pilot Program formula grants. The conferees are strongly urged to fully fund the President's request for these programs. highway safety The Administration urges the conferees to provide funding consistent with the recently enacted reauthorization for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's operations and research activities. This would provide an increase of $20 million above the House and Senate funding levels. This funding would allow expanded Buckle Up America and Partners in Progress efforts to meet alcohol and belt usage goals. It would also provide enhanced crash data collection, increased defects investigations, and crucial research activities on advanced air bags, crashworthiness, and enhanced testing to make better car safety information more readily available to the public. motor carrier safety The Administration appreciates the Senate bill's funding of $155 million, the amended request, for the National Motor Carrier Safety Grant Program. This will allow the Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety to undertake improvements in the area of motor carrier enforcement, research, and data collection activities that are designed to increase safety on our Nation's roads and highways. The Administration strongly urges the conferees to continue to provide this funding as well as the additional $5.8 million requested for motor carrier operations. job access and reverse commute The Administration is disappointed that both the House and Senate would provide only $75 million--half of the amount authorized and requested--for the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. This program is a critical component of the Administration's welfare-to-work effort and local demands far exceed available resources. Demand is expected to increase further as more communities around the country work together to address the transportation challenges faced by families moving from welfare to work and by other low income workers. The Administration urges the conferees to provide full funding at $150 million. office of the secretary The Administration urges the conferees to provide the President's request of $63 million for the Office of the Secretary in a consolidated account and delete the limitation on political appointees in both bills. This is necessary to provide the Secretary with the resources and flexibility to manage the Department effectively. In addition, we request restoration of the seven-percent reduction to the Office of Civil Rights contained in the Senate version of the bill. This reduction would hamper the Department's ability to enforce laws prohibiting discrimination in Federally operated and assisted transportation programs. language provisions The conferees are requested to delete provisions in both bills that would restrict the Coast Guard's and Federal Aviation Administration's user fee authority. User fees can help the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration by providing resources to meet their operating and capital needs without significantly reducing other vital transportation programs. The conferees are requested to delete provisions in both versions of the bill that would impose DOT-wide reductions in obligations to the Transportation Administrative Service Center. These reductions, which are particularly severe in the Senate, would impose significant constraints on critical administrative programs. The conferees are requested to delete Section 316 of the Senate bill, which would extend the traditional anti-lobbying provision in DOT appropriations acts to State legislatures. This broad, ambiguous provision would chill the informational activities of the Department and limit the ability of the Department to carry out its safety mandate. The existing requirements of Section 7104 of TEA-21 adequately address this issue. There are several provisions in both bills that purport to require congressional approval before Executive Branch execution of aspects of the bill. The Administration will interpret such provisions to require notification only, since any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court ruling in INS versus Chadha. report language issue The Administration is concerned with the House report language that would not fund the controller-in-charge differential, which was part of the carefully crafted air traffic controller agreement research last year. We look forward to working with the Committee to address our mutual concerns. Sincerely, Jacob J. Lew, Director. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2084, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I am pleased that during this, the first day of the first full week of the new fiscal year, we are sending a free-standing Transportation bill to the President for his signature. Earlier this year I would not have predicted that we would succeed in getting a free-standing Transportation bill. Credit for his successful accomplishment belongs primarily to our subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby. This bill has had a number of difficulties along the way--difficulties that sometimes divided Senator Shelby and myself. But I think it is fair to say that throughout the year, both Senator Shelby and I showed a willingness to listen, as well as a willingness to compromise. As such, many of the problems that burdened this bill earlier this year have been worked out over time. Senator Shelby consulted the Minority throughout this year's process. We may not have agreed on every figure and every policy contained in this bill, but there were never any surprises. His door was always open to me and to the other minority members of the subcommittee. I especially want to thank Senator Shelby for his attention to the unique transportation needs of my home state of New Jersey, the most congested state in the nation. Our congestion problem makes New Jersey the most transit-dependent state in the nation and Senator Shelby recognized this fact by working with me to provide substantial investments in projects like the Hudson-Bergen waterfront, the Newark-Elizabeth rail link, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, the West Trenton line, and a feasibility study of a new transit tunnel under the Hudson River. The Transportation Subcommittee faced a very tight allocation. These funding difficulties were made more challenging by the spending increases mandated for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration under TEA-21. These mandated increases put extraordinary pressure on the non-protected programs in the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The funding level provided for Amtrak represents the largest single cut in this bill below the fiscal year 1999 level. Amtrak is funded at a level fully 6 percent below last year's level. It is to Amtrak's credit, however, that Amtrak's financial turn-around has generated the kind of revenue that will allow the corporation to absorb this cut without any notable service reductions. Funding for the operations budget within the Federal Aviation Administration is another area of concern. While this bill funds FAA Operations [[Page 23702]] at a level fully 6 percent above last year's level, the amount provided remains 2.3 percent below the level requested by the Administration. Also, funding for highway safety within the operations and research account in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is 19 percent below the President's request. In this instance, the Administration's budget request depended upon the enactment of a new authorization bill raising the authorization ceilings for NHTSA. Unfortunately, by the time that authorization bill was enacted, our subcommittee ceiling had already been established and we did not have the funding to accommodate these funding increases for NHTSA. Mr. President, if I could identify one serious flaw with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), it would be the fact that several trust funded programs for highway construction are granted guaranteed increases over the next several years, while the safety programs from the trust fund are not granted similarly privileged budgetary treatment. We need to do better for these critical safety programs, both in the FAA and in NHTSA. I have not given up on the chance to do better for these programs. I intend to work with the Administration to see if additional funds can be included in an omnibus appropriations bill or, perhaps, in a Supplemental Appropriations bill. In the area of truck safety, I am disappointed that this bill does not include the $50 million that I added during full committee markup for grants within the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. The tight funding allocation burdening the subcommittee just made it impossible to accommodate this item in Conference. However, I have to say that while money is important to our efforts to maintain truck and bus safety, guts and determination on the part of the Administration is of even greater importance. The Office of Motor Carrier Safety needs to be willing to shut down the most egregious safety violators to protect bus passengers and the motoring public. There have been several hearings regarding the deficiencies of the Office of Motor Carriers this year. Within the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, we spent considerable time discussing the recent series of fatal bus crashes within New Jersey. The Commerce Committee also held hearings on the overall deficiencies with the OMC. Those hearings painted a very dismal picture of a largely impotent agency that is more interested in outreach than in ensuring safe truck and bus operations. More recently, we have seen indications of a new, more serious attitude at the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. This appropriations bill mandates that that office can no longer be operated within the Federal Highway Administration. Perhaps this will make a difference. In my view, the jury is still out on whether we have turned the corner on improving truck and bus safety. Over the course of the next year, we will need to review carefully whether the changes recently announced by the Office of Motor Carriers represent a true change in attitude or just a change in rhetoric. In summary, Mr. President, I encourage all Members to vote in favor of this conference report. The conference agreement is a balanced and bipartisan effort to meet the needs of our nation's transportation enterprise within a difficult funding envelope. I believe it deserves the support of all Members. Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:30 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2084. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. 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 Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), would vote ``aye.'' The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.] YEAS--88 Abraham Akaka Allard Ashcroft Baucus Bayh Bennett Biden Bingaman Bond Boxer Breaux Brownback Bryan Bunning Burns Byrd Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig Crapo DeWine Dodd Domenici Dorgan Durbin Edwards Feingold Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Gorton Graham Gramm Grams Grassley Gregg Harkin Helms Hutchinson Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kerrey Kerry Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Lott Lugar McConnell Mikulski Moynihan Murkowski Murray Nickles Reid Robb Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Sarbanes Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith (NH) Snowe Specter Stevens Thompson Thurmond Torricelli Voinovich Warner Wellstone Wyden NAYS--3 Conrad Enzi Hagel NOT VOTING--9 Daschle Hatch Hollings Kennedy Mack McCain Reed Smith (OR) Thomas The conference report was agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Alaska is recognized. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend Senators Shelby and Lautenberg for this bill. It is really a monstrous bill, and they have come back with a very good compromise, a bill with which we can all live. The staff on this bill deserves a great deal of credit, too. To my right is Wally Burnett, staff director of the Transportation Subcommittee for the Senate. He handles the highway and aviation accounts. Wally tops at 205 pounds now, but we call him Little Wally in Fairbanks. I thank him and Joyce Rose, who handles the railroad and transit accounts. She spent a lot of time away from her young kids. Paul Doerrer handled the Coast Guard and NTSB accounts. He did a great job on his first bill. I also thank Peter Rogoff and Carole Geagley of the minority. They have worked very hard on this bill. As I said, it is an extremely good bill. I want to mention two items related to this bill. We do have a very difficult problem in Alaska on aviation safety. We are, after all, the largest State of the Union, one-fifth of the size of the United States. We use aircraft as other people use taxis or buses or trains. Over 80 percent of our inter-city traffic is by air. Seventy percent of our cities can be reached only by air. As a consequence, safety is one of our major concerns. This summer, Director Hall of the National Transportation Safety Board came to Alaska. He met there with representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and their National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH. There are resources provided in this bill to implement the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations and NIOSH's interagency initiative for aviation safety in my home State of Alaska. Senator Specter's bill, the Labor-HHS bill, provides the resources for NIOSH. They will have to be in the bill in order to put this plan into action. The NIOSH initiative for the air taxi industry in Alaska is modeled after the [[Page 23703]] highly successful 1993 helicopter logging study which produced recommendations for changes that implemented safety plans without Federal regulation. NIOSH recommended crew rest and crew duty schedules along with changes in helicopter logging equipment, and that has all but eliminated helicopter logging fatalities since those recommendations were implemented. It is my hope that the NIOSH study on aviation can produce the same results--industry-led improvements to commuter aviation safety operations in Alaska--again, without the need for new Government- imposed mandates. The industry itself I believe will implement the NIOSH recommendations. As the Senate knows, my family has known fatalities from airplane crashes. And I have many friends who have been involved in such crashes. As one who was lucky enough to walk away, it is my hope that these studies will lead to greater safety considerations for all who fly in Alaska. I am grateful to the chairman and the ranking member, Chairman Shelby and Senator Lautenberg, for including in this bill these great, new safety initiatives. I am happy to report on another matter. This bill ensures completion of the pedestrian footbridge that will span the Chena River in Fairbanks. Fairbanks is Alaska's second largest city. The Alaska River Walk Centennial Bridge is the brainchild of Dr. William Ransom Wood. He is really the sage of Alaska. He is the executive director of Festival Fairbanks. This bridge is a small piece of an overall plan that Dr. Wood and the rest of the festival have developed to beautify Fairbanks and make it pedestrian friendly. At 95, Dr. Wood has been one of Alaska's major players. He served as the president of the University of Alaska, mayor of Fairbanks, and on so many community councils and State task forces that I cannot here name them all. In honor of Dr. Wood's contribution to Fairbanks, the State of Alaska, and our Nation as a naval commander in World War II, Senator Murkowski and I join together in introducing a Senate resolution which will urge Secretary Slater to designate this footbridge the William R. Wood Centennial Bridge. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the things the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee just said, particularly his acknowledgment of the hard work done by the staff on both sides, the majority staff and the minority staff, and to say that I watch Senator Stevens in action; I see how difficult it is to get some of these allocations in the shape we would like. We are pleased that the Transportation bill was, if I may use the word, hammered out because there are still a lot of needs with which we have to be concerned. One is the FAA, of course, and our safety programs. I was pleased to hear the Senator mention that. The other is the U.S. Coast Guard, in which Senator Stevens has such an active interest. I share that interest. The State of New Jersey has a great deal of dependence--as well as the entire country--on the activities of the Coast Guard. And the fact is that their funding is presently on the short side. But decisions are made when resources are too spare, and, inevitably, some hard decisions have to be made. I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for being able to ensure that the Transportation bill was moved along. I know how hard he is working with some of the other bills that are still pending. Mr. President, I yield the floor. ____________________