[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8761-S8789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of 
minutes to finish and answer just a couple of things that were said.
  First, in relation to what the Senator from New Jersey said, I do not 
think that we need to talk about what other areas might arise from some 
innovative approach to this amendment. This amendment is very simple 
and very straightforward. We are not talking about penalizing the 
States. We are talking about letting them do as they wish, do something 
that could add to the medical costs because we know this is a safety 
issue, and if they decide to exercise that right that they take the 
responsibility for it.
  I think it is pretty simple. I think that Members are going to start 
seeing as we go down the road pursuing the unfunded mandates theory, 
and as we are turning things back to the States, the States are going 
to take responsibility for what they do. That is part of returning the 
power to the States, which I think is right thing to do.
  So I support the underlying amendment. This is not a gutting 
amendment at all. It is an amendment that I think is the correct 
thing--that, if the States decide that they are going to opt out from 
the Federal helmet laws, they take the responsibility for doing that. I 
think it is very simple and straightforward.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Just very briefly in response to what the Senator from New Jersey was 
talking about, that we have laws with respect to the drunk driving. The 
interesting part is how this amendment would not have an impact on 
somebody who is drunk while driving, or reckless driving, or somebody 
who overdoses on drugs, and all of these categories. They happen to be 
eligible for Medicaid, and Medicare. They still will get medical care. 
But a motorcycle rider who may not be wearing a helmet, abiding by 
State laws, gets in an accident, may not be any fault of their own, but 
would be denied medical care because they were not wearing a helmet 
even though they were abiding by that State's law, I do not think that 
is the approach that we should adopt.
  I urge Members of the Senate to reject the amendment offered by 
Senator Hutchison.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I make the motion to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion.
  Ms. SNOWE. 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. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Maine to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator 
from Texas. On this motion, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler [[Page S 8762]] 
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
                             NOT VOTING--1
                                     
                                 McCain
                                     

  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1443) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the majority leader. I am prepared to have a voice 
vote on the underlying amendment. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Maine.
  The amendment (No. 1442) was agreed to.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                           amendment no. 1437

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent last evening, 
attending the high school graduation of my son, Randy.
  I would have voted against the Smith amendment lifting penalties 
against States for not having helmet or seat belt laws.
  This issue for me, comes down to the simple question of safety. An 
issue that is bipartisan and noncontroversial. In fact, a recent 
comprehensive consume survey shows that 82 percent of Americans support 
a strong Federal role in safety.
  How can we then support a step backward against the giant gains we 
have made in highway accident and injury prevention. According to the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, from 1983 to 1993, 
safety belts saved more than 40,000 lives and prevented $88 billion in 
economic losses by reducing health care costs and productivity losses. 
In 1993 alone, motorcycle helmet laws in 25 States saved 515 lives, 
prevented 2,035 moderate to serious injuries, and saved $513 million in 
economic losses.
  As a former State senator, I understand State's rights, but let us 
legislate on the side of safety and human life.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from 
Rhode Island in a colloquy on Federal oversight of the design of 
projects in Vermont that are on noninterstate portions of the National 
Highway System [NHS].
  First, Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that 
committee staff, my staff, the U.S. Department of Transportation and 
the Vermont Agency of Transportation have put in on the NHS-design 
issue. All the parties have acknowledged that Vermont's mountainous 
terrain and historic villages present a unique challenge when designing 
highway and rural road improvements. It has been the goal of the 
parties to come up with solutions that do not adversely affect 
Vermont's small communities and rural landscape.
  Mr. President, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act placed control for the design of highway improvements off the NHS 
in the hands of the individual States. It has been our experience in 
Vermont that this has improved communications with local citizens on 
highway projects and lowered project costs. it is the Vermont Agency of 
Transportation's desire to assume primary responsibility for the 
management of its transportation system, including those non-interstate 
roads proposed for the National Highway System. Representatives of the 
U.S. Department of Transportation have assured Vermont transportation 
officials that such control and flexibility can be provided for the 
non-interstate NHS roads through existing provisions of the United 
States Code, title 23.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Vermont has been assured by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation that under section 117, United States Code title 23, the 
Vermont Agency of Transportation can be granted the authority to 
provide design exceptions at its discretion on non-interstate NHS 
roads. Further, Vermont has been assured that it may determine the 
scope of non-interstate NHS projects. These projects include simple 
road and bridge resurfacing, while more comprehensive improvements 
undergo the necessary planning and design process.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. To ensure that a common understanding exists on the 
above matters between the U.S. Department of Transportation and Vermont 
transportation officials, Vermont has been assured by the Federal 
Highway Administration's Deputy Administrator Jane Garvey and other 
high-level Federal highway officials that she and these officials will 
visit Vermont in the near future to discuss these matters. Following 
this visit and drawing on the provisions of section 117 of the United 
States Code, title 23, Vermont has been assured that an agreement will 
be executed that will grant Vermont the authority required to assume 
primary responsibility for the management of its transpiration system, 
including the non-interstate roads on the NHS.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator accurately states my understanding of the 
intent of the agreement between the U.S. Department of Transportation 
and the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
                             Change of Vote

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 271, I voted ``yes.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President while we have the two leaders on the floor, 
I wonder if we might explore the possibility of finishing the pending 
matter tonight.
  I wish to advise the Senate there are 26 amendments pending. Of that 
number of amendments, it is my assessment that only four will require 
rollcall votes, and the balance can be resolved, hopefully, by the 
managers.
  I see present on the floor a number of the Senators associated with 
the amendments that could require rollcall votes. If I might identify 
the Members: Senator Roth has an amendment; the distinguished former 
leader, Senator Byrd; and the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. 
Those are the amendments that I feel will require votes.
  If we could get time agreements and finish those amendments, I think 
we can work out the balance of the amendments. This bill would be ready 
for final passage late tonight, or whenever the leaders desire 
tomorrow.
  Mr. DOLE. I have not had a chance to discuss this with my colleague, 
Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, but I hope we can finish it 
this evening if we can obtain time agreements. Four amendments would 
not take that much time. We had a short night last night because of two 
or three very special events which presented conflicts for many of our 
colleagues.
  I would certainly be willing, and I do not think the Senator from 
South Dakota has any objection.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection, and I would like to continue to 
work.
  I know a number of Senators are prepared to offer their amendments. 
They are here on the floor. I think we ought to proceed.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will await the return of my comanager, 
the Senator from Montana. But seeing three of the proponents on the 
floor, I ask the Senator from Delaware if a period of an hour and a 
half equally divided would be suitable for the disposition of the 
amendment, together with Senator Baucus; is that correct?
[[Page S 8763]]

  Mr. ROTH. That would be most satisfactory.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I now ask the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, with respect to his amendment 
if an hour equally divided would meet his requirements?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, an hour equally divided would be agreeable 
to me. However, if I am going to be 9 o'clock tonight calling up my 
amendment, having an opportunity--I have been here all day and I 
indicated yesterday I would be ready to call up my amendment the first 
thing today. As I understand it, there is a kind of lineup.
  I know what my rights are. Under the rules I can get recognition to 
call up my amendment any time. I want to cooperate with the managers 
and therefore I have no objection to one or two others going first, but 
I do not want to have an agreement on my amendment and then call it up 
here at 9 o'clock tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will work with the sponsors of the 
amendments as to the sequence and timing, either today or should the 
leadership grant us time in the morning, to do it then. But I thank the 
Senator for indicating the time within which presumably the Senator 
from Montana and I might be able to get a time agreement--just as to 
the time of the amendments. The sequencing would be left open.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I do not like sequencing, generally speaking. I like 
to follow the rules of the Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. BYRD. But may I say to the Senator, if we are not going to finish 
it today, if we are going to go over to tomorrow, I would prefer to go 
over to tomorrow now that it is 4:30 in the afternoon.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is a matter the leadership will have 
to decide.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  I now ask the Senator from North Dakota with respect to his 
amendment, the amount of time required to be equally divided?
  Mr. DORGAN. What amount of time?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would agree, as I previously discussed with the Senator 
from Virginia, to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side.
  If the Senator from Virginia would be inclined to accept my amendment 
I would do it in 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. At this time, I say to my good friend, Mr. President, I 
will look at it but I am not able to assure him.
  If I could put down 40 minutes equally divided for the amendment 
sponsored by the Senator from North Dakota?
  Mr. DORGAN. Fine.
  Mr. WARNER. It gives the managers some area in which they can work.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 1444

  (Purpose: To permit States to use Federal highway funds for capital 
 improvements to, and operating support for, intercity passenger rail 
                                service)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment 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 Delaware [Mr. Roth] for himself, Mr. 
     Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Specter, Mr. Pell, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. D'Amato proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1444.

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

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

       (a) Interstate Rail Compacts.--
       (1) Consent to compacts.--Congress grants consent to States 
     with an interest in a specific form, route, or corridor of 
     intercity passenger rail service (including high speed rail 
     service) to enter into interstate compacts to promote the 
     provision of the service, including--
       (A) retaining an existing service or commencing a new 
     service;
       (B) assembling rights-of-way; and
       (B) performing capital improvements, including--
       (i) the construction and rehabilitation of maintenance 
     facilities;
       (ii) the purchase of locomotives; and
       (iii) operational improvements, including communications, 
     signals, and other systems.
       (2) Financing.--An interstate compact established by States 
     under paragraph (1) may provide that, in order to carry out 
     the compact, the States may--
       (A) accept contributions from a unit of State or local 
     government or a person;
       (B) use any Federal or State funds made available for 
     intercity passenger rail service (except funds made available 
     for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation);
       (C) on such terms and conditions as the State consider 
     advisable--
       (i) borrow money on a short-term basis and issue notes for 
     the borrowing; and
       (ii) issue bonds; and
       (D) obtain financing by other means permitted under Federal 
     or State law.
       (b) Eligibility of Passenger Rail as Surface Transportation 
     Program Project.--Section 133(b) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, railroads,'' after 
     ``highways)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``, all eligible activities under section 
     5311 of title 49, United States Code,'' before ``and publicly 
     owned'';
       (B) by inserting ``or rail passenger'' after ``intercity 
     bus''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, including terminals and facilities owned by 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation''.
       (3) in paragraph 6(a), by inserting ``, and for passenger 
     rail services,'' after ``programs''.
       (c) Eligibility of Passenger Rail Under Congestion 
     Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.--The first 
     sentence of section 149(b) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) if the project or program will have air quality 
     benefits through construction of and operational improvements 
     for intercity passenger rail facilities, operation of 
     intercity passenger rail trains, and acquisition of rolling 
     stock for intercity passenger rail service, except that not 
     more than 50 percent of the amount received by a State for a 
     fiscal year under this paragraph may be obligated for 
     operating support.''.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering today on 
behalf of myself and Senator Biden, as well as several other Members of 
the Senate, has a very simple and important purpose and that is to give 
States the much needed flexibility to use their CMAQ and STP funds for 
Amtrak passenger rail service.
  Since late last year, Amtrak has begun a much needed restructuring. 
The restructuring has required substantial participation by State 
governments in determining which rail lines will stay in service. While 
States currently have wide authority in allocating Federal 
transportation dollars--whether it be on pedestrian walkways, bikeways, 
buses, light rail, highway, and other intermodal and commuter-based 
transit needs, a damaging double standard exists which, by law, 
prevents States from utilizing these funds to improve, expand or simply 
maintain vital Amtrak service if they so choose.
  My legislation would eliminate this double standard and give States 
more flexibility in the way they use their transportation dollars.
  My amendment addresses a number of realistic and sensible ways States 
can be given this flexibility.
  Under my proposal, States would be allowed to use funds available in 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ] for passenger 
rail service.
  This program, created in the Intermodal Surface Transportation and 
Efficiency Act, provides an incentive to focus on transportation 
alternatives which reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and 
lower fuel consumption.
  Amtrak passenger rail service clearly meets these criteria, 
potentially better than any other transportation alternative currently 
available. My amendment would allow CMAQ funds for passenger rail 
service.
  Second, States would be allowed to use their Surface Transportation 
Program [STP] dollars for Amtrak passenger rail service. STP gives 
States and localities unprecedented flexibility in moving Federal 
dollars between modes. Currently, States are using these funds for 
carpool projects, parking facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities. [[Page S 8764]] 
  My amendment simply ensures that this flexibility is extended to 
States to use for Amtrak passenger rail service.
  In addition to these provisions, Mr. President, my amendment would 
permit States to enter into interstate compacts in support of Amtrak 
services. We know that it requires coordinated efforts among a number 
of States to make a regional passenger rail route possible. Those 
States could use Federal funds from the programs I just listed, or make 
use of bonding authority under the compact to support intercity rail 
services.
  Mr. President, the need for flexibility is clear. I have here, a 
letter signed by Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Thompson of 
Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, and Tom Carper, Governor of my 
State of Delaware, both Democrats and Republicans. This letter supports 
my amendment.
  Let me read this letter. This letter went to Senator Baucus and to 
Senator Chafee, the chairman of the committee.
  This is from the four Governors, and it says:

       As you proceed with consideration of S.440, we want you to 
     be aware our strong support for the right of states to use 
     their federal transportation funds for rail passenger 
     service. The amendment being offered by Senators Roth and 
     Biden has our full and enthusiastic support.
       Under present law, we are not able to make use of our 
     federal highway or transit funds for rail passenger service. 
     This has posed a number of difficulties for our state in 
     forming partnerships with Amtrak for these purposes, even 
     when investments in rail passenger service would produce 
     clear public benefits and improve the service quality of 
     other modes of transportation.
       Adoption of the proposed amendment will provide states with 
     the ability to decide what transportation system best meets 
     their needs and to allocate their federal funds accordingly. 
     In this time of severe budget constraints at all levels of 
     government, it is essential that we empower state and local 
     officials to make the best use of scarce federal resources. 
     This is clearly a states' rights issue.
       We view this adoption of the Roth/Biden provision as part 
     of S.440 as an extremely positive step in the direction of 
     achieving a higher level of state choice and a more balanced 
     transportation system. We look forward to working with you to 
     ensure this result.

  As I said, this was signed by Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor 
Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, and Governor Carper 
of Delaware.
  These Governors have already committed their own States' general 
revenues to support intercity rail routes, at the same time they have 
surpluses in Federal transportation programs that they are prohibited 
from using to maintain Amtrak services. These Governors have confirmed 
the need for more flexibility.
  California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, 
and Vermont have also confirmed the importance of Amtrak.
  Mr. President, Congress has recognized the need for States to have 
flexibility with Federal subsidies in important local transportation 
decisions. In fact, the increased flexibility provided by this 
amendment is consistent with the major goals of the bill before us 
today. In an important sense, this amendment simply removes an 
inconsistency in earlier legislation.
  When ISTEA was enacted in 1991, a major premise of that legislation 
was to remove the unnecessary hurdles in the way of a national 
transportation policy.
  Fundamental to that landmark legislation was the realization that all 
the components of our transportation system must be allowed to work 
together, each making its own appropriate contribution.
  ISTEA provided unprecedented flexibility to States and localities to 
make use of Federal transportation funds to provide the mix most 
appropriate for local transportation needs.
  Adoption of my amendment would extend the irrefutable logic of that 
approach to passenger rail service.
  Mr. President, this legislation calls for no new spending. It does 
not change Federal transportation allocation formulas, nor does it 
mandate that States spend their Federal transportation dollars on 
passenger rail service.
  As I have said, it simply gives States the ability to spend Federal 
CMAQ and STP money as they see fit and in ways which have been 
repeatedly found to be good for them and good for the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to this amendment.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware and I are often suspect 
when it comes to Amtrak since we are such daily users. So I want a full 
disclosure to acknowledge that, if I had my way, we would be dealing 
with Amtrak in a way far beyond what this amendment does.
  I think we should be setting up a trust fund for Amtrak. I think we 
should be dealing with it very differently than we are. But, Mr. 
President, the amendment that the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, 
and I have is much more modest in its approach, and it is not designed 
to be a long-term solution for Amtrak's financial problems. They are 
going to have to come from the internal restructuring which Senator 
Roth referred to that is already under way and from a clearly defined, 
in my view, dedicated source of funds to support its capital needs the 
way we provide capital for highways and airports in other systems.
  I would just like to note for the record that we subsidize airports 
and highways on a per passenger basis considerably more than we do 
Amtrak. It is not even close. And the single most environmentally sound 
thing we could do and, from a safety standpoint, the single most 
significant thing we can do is have a real passenger rail service 
system in the United States. I might add there is not one single 
passenger rail service system in the world that is self-sufficient; not 
one in the whole world.
  But that is another argument. We are not here today to correct the 
problems of Amtrak. We are here to try to deal with an inequity that 
exists that in effect prejudices Amtrak in a way no other means of 
transportation, including pedestrian paths and bike paths, are 
prejudiced.
  I believe there has been some misunderstanding about the proposal 
which Senator Roth and I have, and possibly we will see some of that in 
the debate today.
  But let me begin by briefly explaining what this amendment will not 
do. It will not spend a dime of additional money. It will not spend a 
dime of additional money, State or Federal. It will not require any 
State in the Nation to spend any funds on Amtrak.
  There is no mandate, no requirement. It will not change any formula 
for the allocating of transportation funds among the States. It will 
not affect the amount of annual Federal transportation funds that 
States now receive. It will not do any of those things.
  So that your State, for Senators who are listening and the staffs who 
are listening, will not in any way be affected in terms of the amount 
of money, percentage of money, source of money that is now received.
  But let us look at what it will do.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that this amendment simply permits 
the States to use funds they already qualify for in a way that is not 
currently permitted.
  Under this proposal, States will be given the discretion to include 
intercity rail service, which is another way of saying Amtrak, among 
the transportation options available to their citizens. Current 
restrictions on the use of Federal transportation funds will be 
removed, and Governors around this country will be able to use those 
funds that they now get under the present formula as they see fit, 
including supporting intercity rail service provided by Amtrak if that 
is what they choose to do.
  In very congested areas, particularly in the urban corridors along 
the east and west coasts, but also in other areas, adding some more 
highways is simply not an economic option. For example, in our State of 
Delaware, were Amtrak to shut down, the idea of building another I-95 
through our State--our State is not wide enough to take another I-95. 
We cannot handle another system that is that large in terms of our air 
quality, in terms of our land resources available to us, and in every 
other way. It makes no sense.
  By the way, I might add, I will put in the Record at a later time 
what the effect on my State and the Northeast corridor would be if 
there were no Amtrak and what the effect would be on [[Page S 
8765]] the airports of the east coast were there no Amtrak.
  The fact is that this option is not only an option that should be 
made available to States with a great deal of congestion--keeping an 
Amtrak route open on an existing rail right of way is much more cost 
effective, safer and cleaner than buying land and constructing even one 
more lane on a major interstate highway. The interstate highway is 
already there. It is called the right of way that Amtrak has. There is 
already a rail bed. And what is happening now because of cost 
containment, we are cutting the number of trains we put on that rail 
bed. We are cutting them, reducing the number of people who can use 
that mode of transportation and putting them on highways or in planes, 
both of which cause additional congestion.
  The increased flexibility provided by this amendment is fully 
consistent with the major goal of the National Highway System bill 
before us today and with so-called ISTEA, the landmark legislation that 
calls for a National Highway System designation.
  Mr. President, the need for this enhanced State flexibility is clear. 
In recent months, under the leadership of Amtrak's president, Tom 
Downs, Amtrak has undertaken, as Senator Roth has said, a major 
downsizing and restructuring to reduce and eventually eliminate its 
dependence on Federal operating subsidies.
  Now, again, I wish to make it clear I do not think it should have to 
do as much as it is doing. I think it is counterproductive. But the 
fact is they are given a mandate. They are told, by the way, this all 
ends in a year certain. And Downs has gone out there and done what he 
has had to do. He has fired thousands of employees. He has cut the 
number of trains going into various States. He has reduced costs.
  This is a mandate set out in both the House and Senate budget 
resolutions, which, I might add, I voted against, but it is there. That 
is likely to be the law.
  The first stage of this progress made by Mr. Downs was announced last 
December with major route eliminations taking effect in April. And 
President Downs heard from an awful lot of folks on this floor saying: 
Why did you cut the train out of my State? Why did you cut it out of my 
State? Why do I not have this access? And the answer is because we 
decided that we are not going to have the national rail transportation 
system that we should have. We are cutting the budget.
  Well, he did his part. He has cut and eliminated routes. Frequency 
reductions on selected routes throughout the country will be completed 
by this coming October. That is a euphemism for saying if you have 
three trains coming through your State now, you may have one coming 
through your State by October. These steps have reduced by 20 percent 
the route miles previously served by Amtrak. And as a result many 
commuters across the country find themselves with little or none of the 
Amtrak service that they once had depended upon. All of a sudden 
Governors who thought this was a good idea and even some of my 
colleagues in the Senate who thought it was a good idea are realizing 
how important Amtrak was to them. The Governors of those States where 
these cuts took place know that intercity rail is an important option 
for small towns without air service as well as for congested commuter 
corridors. They know that intercity rail supports commerce as an 
important component of the modern national transportation system and in 
some States particularly their tourism.
  That is why States are seeking ways to use the funds, the CMAQ funds 
referred to earlier, to meet congestion mitigation and air quality 
goals, to support Amtrak rather than to deal with having to build more 
highways. Under current law, that is not an option. Under current law, 
they are not allowed to do that.
  I have here, Mr. President, a letter from Governors Dean of Vermont, 
Thompson of Wisconsin, Engler of Michigan, and Carper of Delaware, 
which I will not repeat. It was already put into the Record by my 
colleague from Delaware.
  Mr. President, among the authors of this letter are Governors who 
have already committed their own State's general revenue to support 
intercity rail routes at the same time they have surpluses in Federal 
transportation programs that are prohibited because they are prohibited 
from using Amtrak services.
  In other words, their citizens pay into the highway trust fund x 
amount of dollars. They get them back. Because they do not want to 
build more highways, they cannot use them so they have to send them 
back to the trust fund, not to the taxpayers, not to those folks--back 
into the trust fund. And they say, why can we not use that money to 
meet the needs in our State, the transportation needs and the air 
quality needs, et cetera?
  States that have confirmed the importance of Amtrak runs include 
California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, 
Vermont--the list goes on.
  Mr. President, virtually every advanced industrial nation in the 
world has found intercity passenger rail service to be essential. All 
of our major competitors and trading partners provide some level of 
financial support to assure that the benefits of passenger rail, which 
include less congestion and less construction of highways and airports, 
are available to them.
  There are tourists here listening to this today from other countries. 
One of the often heard marvels is, well, I was in Paris; I was in 
Tokyo; I got in a spotless train that went 190--in one case 300--miles 
per hour and it got me from A to B, and it was economical, and it 
could, and it worked, et cetera. Why does the greatest nation in the 
world not have that?
  Well, the greatest nation in the world does not have that because we 
have devalued intercity rail service.
  Our amendment today does not solve the overall problem, but it does 
provide those Governors that I mentioned and others the means, if they 
choose, to support Amtrak routes important to their States. With the 
tools provided by this proposal, States will be empowered to make more 
efficient decisions about the mix of transportation services that best 
meet their citizens' needs.
  Now, if the Governor of a State says, ``I do not want any part of any 
Amtrak service,'' fine. That is up to the State. Let them make that 
choice. Mr. President, this amendment would help those States and 
others maximize the effectiveness of their transportation dollars. 
Specifically, it makes Amtrak an eligible use for funds from the 
following areas:
  The surface transportation program. Right now those funds may be used 
for most kinds of roads and highways as well as for capital costs, for 
bus terminals, for carpool projects, for bicycle and pedestrian 
facilities, for hiking paths, for bike paths. They can use the highway 
funds for all those things, but they cannot use it for Amtrak passenger 
rail service.
  Our amendment would add intercity rail to that list, consistent with 
the aims of the program to support a fully integrated transportation 
network. This amendment also makes intercity rail an eligible use for 
the so-called CMAQ funds. This program--congestion mitigation and air 
quality is what the acronym stands for--this program is designed to 
help urban areas come into compliance with the Clean Air Act 
requirements.
  Mr. President, Amtrak can cut down on congestion and carry the same 
number of people with less pollution than cars on the highways. Surely 
this would be an appropriate use of those funds, a use currently denied 
the States.
  In addition to those provisions, Mr. President, this amendment would 
permit States to enter into interstate compacts in support of Amtrak 
services. Logically, it may require coordinated efforts among a number 
of States to make a regional passenger railroad possible. Those States 
could use the funds from the program I just listed or make use of 
bonding authority under the compact to support intercity rail services. 
In every instance, this proposal is consistent with the goals of the 
ISTEA, so-called ISTEA. And in an important sense, this amendment 
simply removes the inconsistencies in the earlier legislation.
  When ISTEA was enacted in 1991, Mr. President, the major premise of 
that legislation was to remove inefficient and unnecessary hurdles in 
the way of our national transportation policy. Fundamental to that 
landmark legislation was the realization that all of the [[Page S 
8766]] components of our transportation system, all of the various 
transportation modes, must be allowed to work together, each making its 
own appropriate contribution according to what the States believe are 
needed to do that.
  In the end, ISTEA provided unprecedented flexibilities to States and 
localities to make use of Federal transportation funds to provide the 
mix most appropriate for local, State and regional transportation 
needs.
  The amendment we are offering here today extends the irrefutable 
logic of that approach to intercity rail service making it eligible for 
Federal transportation funds. By opening up more options to State and 
local officials, by relieving congestion on our highways and in our 
airports, this amendment is fully consistent with the goals of ISTEA. I 
urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the very highway interests who 
argue against this amendment argued against all those other changes as 
well.
  And I want my colleagues to please keep in mind, when they vote on 
this amendment, what this amendment does not do. It does not add a dime 
of additional money to State or Federal funds. It will not require the 
States to spend a single dime on Amtrak. It will not change any formula 
allocating transportation funds to your State. And it will not affect 
the amount of annual Federal transportation funds that your State will 
receive. It will merely give your State greater flexibility.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the 
Senators from Delaware in support of this amendment. It has a lot of 
surface appeal. But I think, in the interest of disclosure, in the 
interest of common sense, it is important for Senators to think through 
a lot of other ramifications that have not all been discussed. If one 
thinks a little more deeply about this, I think one will realize maybe 
this is not a good idea after all.
  Several points. First of all, this is essentially an amendment to rob 
Peter to pay Paul. We are going to rob our highway funds to spend money 
on Amtrak. I do not know if that is something we want to do. Frankly, I 
do not know if it is something that the Governors really want to do, 
the State legislatures really want to do. I would guess that most 
Governors, most State legislatures would rather have what they have 
today, a current, dedicated highway account to decide how to allocate 
the highway dollars among the States and not have to decide, of the 
dollars they get, how much is going to go for highway and how much is 
going to go for Amtrak. Rather, it would be better to have a separate, 
dedicated Amtrak account separate from a separate, dedicated highway 
account.
  I have an idea how we can accomplish that, which I think is a much 
better idea to meet our Amtrak needs than the idea that is contained in 
this amendment.
  It is also important to know that there are tremendous road and 
bridge needs in our country. About $212 billion are necessary to get 
our highways up to grade. There are a lot of highways in America. There 
are a lot of potholes and roads that are just in bad shape and not up 
to standards, up to snuff. The Federal Highway Administration estimates 
a total of about $212 billion of unmet highway needs. Then there are 
the bridge unmet needs. The Federal Highway Administration estimates 
that is about $78 billion, about $78 billion of bridge disrepair, that 
is, bridges that just are in bad shape in our country.
  For example, if you take the State of Arkansas--I am going down some 
States alphabetically--37 percent of the bridges in the State of 
Arkansas are deficient. Let us go down to Georgia. Twenty-one percent 
of the bridges in Georgia are deficient, that is, either functionally 
obsolete or structurally deficient, as estimated by the Federal Highway 
Administration. In the State of Iowa, 31 percent are deficient. In the 
State of Louisiana, 40 percent are deficient. In the State of Michigan, 
35 percent are deficient. In the State of Nebraska, 38 percent are 
deficient. In the State of South Dakota, 31 percent are deficient. Let 
us look at Delaware. In the State of Delaware, 25 percent of the 
bridges in Delaware are deficient, that is, either functionally 
obsolete or structurally deficient. In the State of New Jersey, Mr. 
President, that figure is 47 percent. The averages, as we go down this 
list are around a high of 66 percent. That is the State of New York. 
The lowest I see on this list is 11 percent for Arizona. But the 
average is about 30 percent, 40 percent. So I wonder if we want to take 
money away from bridge construction and repair, in the way of highway 
construction and repair, and spend it on Amtrak? I just do not think we 
want to do that, particularly if there is a better way to accommodate 
the needs of Amtrak.
  Another problem. Highway planning takes years. Anyone who has spent 
any time talking with the State highway departments, essentially to 
determine which roads to construct, which repairs are to be put in 
place and which bridges are to be repaired, knows that it takes time. 
It takes about 5 years.
  You have to go through the environmental impact statements and public 
hearings. You have to have rights-of-way hearings, what is the right-
of-way going to be for a certain road, even for bridge construction. It 
takes a long, long time.
  There is a backlog of highway projects in most States. Basically, it 
is because the needs are so great and the dollars are so few. That puts 
a lot more pressure on planning and proper planning of highway 
projects, whether it is roads or bridges, or whatever it might be. And 
it means if they are not done right, they are litigated, lawsuits are 
filed, because the EIS process is not fully complied with.
  I am just saying, Mr. President, if we have this already fairly 
convoluted process determining which highway projects are to be pursued 
in each State, then layered on top of that the possibility that all of 
that is going to be disrupted because we are going to divert some 
money, perhaps, in a State to Amtrak, it is going to be chaos and 
difficult to plan. It is hard enough to plan for a project, hard enough 
for people to know if they are going to get their highway project. This 
is going to make it that much more uncertain, that much more complex, 
and that much more difficult. Basically, we are doing people in our 
States quite a disservice, if there is a better alternative--I think 
that is a pretty important point to make--if there is an alternative to 
deal with Amtrak.
  Another problem with the amendment is, basically, as I understand the 
amendment, it says that a State, according to its own discretion, can 
divert some of the highway money it gets to pay for Amtrak. I am not 
sure it is going to work. Why might it not work?
  The problem is this: There is a provision in the proposed amendment 
which provides for interstate Amtrak compacts, but that is all 
voluntary. Let us take the northern-tier States, the State of 
Washington, then Amtrak's route follows Washington, Idaho, Montana, 
North Dakota, over to Minnesota, down to Illinois, and into Chicago. We 
have Amtrak problems. Amtrak service has been reduced from 7-day 
service to 4-day service. We would love to have full 7-day service of 
Amtrak in Montana along the northern tier, just as I am sure other 
States that face reduced service would like to be restored to full 
service, even better service.
  Let us say we in Montana say, ``You bet; this amendment is the law. 
We are going to, even though we don't like it, make the Hobson's choice 
of diverting some money away from highways,'' and believe me, we have 
great unmet highway needs in Montana. Let us say we make the Hobson's 
choice and we painfully, after much gnashing of teeth in our State 
between those who want to ride Amtrak and those who want to meet 
highway needs, make some decision to divert away from highways to 
Amtrak. What is that expenditure going to be? Is that going to be a 
capital expenditure? Are we building better roadbeds? Are we going to 
pay money to hire more conductors and other personnel?
  Let us say we do it. We are going to have Amtrak. It is going to 
work. Suppose folks in Montana want to go someplace; they want to go to 
the Pacific coast, they want to see the ocean, or go in the other 
direction to Minneapolis and Chicago. Let us say the adjoining State 
does not do anything. [[Page S 8767]] If North Dakota, in its wisdom, 
or Idaho, in its wisdom, or Washington, in its wisdom, say, ``Well, 
we're not going to divert any money,'' what is going to happen?
  We have this spruced up service in Montana, we go rushing off to the 
border, and what happens? Is the train going to stop as we wait for the 
2 or 3 more days because Idaho only has alternate day service, or do we 
have to get off our train in Montana--we have a superliner going 
through Montana which zips along at 150 miles an hour. We get to that 
old border and the train stops. Everybody gets off the train and gets 
on a little dinky, bumping-along Idaho train on Amtrak to get over to 
Washington. I do not know, but I do think the probability of all States 
agreeing on a capital expenditure program or all States agreeing to 
spend money for operating expenses, whatever it is, is probably zero. 
It is probably zero.
  So, as a practical matter, I do not think this is going to work. It 
sort of sounds good on the surface: Oh, we are going to divert money 
for Amtrak. It may turn into an intercity rail program only within the 
State. We have a mass transit program for that that will not turn into 
an interstate national Amtrak system. It will not work. It just will 
not work. I think we probably should not spend our time, frankly, 
adopting something which, as I said, just will not work.
  Another point. There is some, not a lot, of support for a Federal 
gasoline tax--some, not a lot. People do not like paying gasoline 
taxes, but they are willing to pay a little bit because they know that 
that money, the gasoline tax, is going to go to the highway trust fund, 
and from the highway trust fund, it is going to be spent on highways.
  It is true, we are not simon pure here. Some of the highway trust 
fund money now goes to related purposes. Some goes to bike ways, some 
goes to safety programs, highway safety and related programs, and even 
some of it goes to mass transit. But, still, Mr. President, I do not 
know that we want to further dilute the purpose of the gasoline tax.
  There are a lot of people in our country who pay gasoline taxes for 
highways. They do not want to pay gasoline taxes for Amtrak. If we are 
going to work on public confidence in Government, we will to do better 
if we keep the purpose for which money is raised directly related to 
the person who is paying the money--user fees, if you will. I just 
think it is very worrisome if we go down the road and start raising 
gasoline taxes, as I said, and spending it for other purposes.
  What might be a better idea? Let me suggest one. This gets a little 
complicated, but bear with me.
  The long and the short of it is, under the law today, about--in fact 
exactly--2\1/2\ cents of the Federal gasoline tax goes to the highway 
trust fund; 2\1/2\ cents of the current gasoline tax and diesel tax 
goes to the highway trust fund.
  In 1996, just a year from now, that 2\1/2\ cents that currently goes 
to the highway trust fund will go for a different purpose. Two cents of 
it goes to the highway trust fund and one-half cent goes to the transit 
trust fund. I am suggesting that we take that half cent, which in 1996 
is scheduled to go to the transit trust fund, and instead dedicate it 
to Amtrak, about $600 million.
  The beauty of that, Mr. President, is it takes nothing away from mass 
transit. The mass transit trust fund account today is already at a $5 
billion surplus. Currently, out of the gasoline tax, about one-half 
cent goes to the transit trust fund. I am suggesting we keep the same 
amount that is now going to the transit trust fund--as I said, it is a 
$5 billion surplus; it is already paying for mass transit. The one-half 
cent I am talking about does not now go to the transit trust fund; not 
yet. It is scheduled to go to the transit trust fund in 1996. I am 
suggesting we take that one-half cent and spend it on Amtrak. Is it new 
taxes we have to raise? None whatsoever. But it is one-half cent 
available to spend on Amtrak. That raises $600 million.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Just a second. We cannot do that on this bill. We cannot 
provide that amendment on this bill because that is a revenue measure, 
and it will be blue-slipped by the House of Representatives. That is, 
they will just not consider it, because as a revenue bill, it did not 
originate in the House. When we get to reconciliation, we then have an 
opportunity to include this provision in reconciliation, which I think 
is the way to solve the Amtrak problem.
 The deficit in Amtrak is about $1 billion a year. We have to make a 
lot of changes in Amtrak, spruce it up, and make it more efficient and 
so forth. But here is a way to provide $600 million a year without 
increasing taxes, and because Amtrak is so important to our country--it 
is vitally important throughout America. There are only two or three 
States that do not have Amtrak service, but the rest do. I suggest that 
the better way to handle this whole problem is to pursue the 
alternative I am suggesting, which solves the Amtrak problem, rather 
than the amendment before us which I think will cause a lot of 
headaches and heartaches and will not even begin to solve the problems 
that we have to deal with regarding Amtrak.

  I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Montana essentially answered the question 
I was about to ask--that we could not do that on this bill. I agree 
that that would be a significant and important change. Granted, it only 
comes out of the mass transit fund, which, right now, is in surplus. 
But it does not come out of the highway money. I would rather see a 
half-cent come out of that 2 cents going to the highway fund. But it is 
very important.
  I want to respond very briefly to the four basic points the Senator 
made. I will really focus on one. He talked about this being--that we 
are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is a judgment for Peter to make, 
whether he wants to give it to Paul. ``Governor Peter'' can decide 
whether or not he wants to suggest that it go to Paul. If Governor 
Peter wants it to stay where it is, you do not have to rob anybody. It 
stays where it is.
  This notion of the need for bridges and repairs, obviously, if the 
States conclude the bridges are more important to them than Amtrak, 
then they will make that judgment. We are only talking about one 
portion of the highway trust funds that go into the State, which rough 
cut is about 25 percent of the moneys that the States get, that is the 
only portion they could use.
  No. 3 is this notion of disruption. I have great admiration for my 
friend from Montana, and I mean that sincerely. He knows that if you 
can paint a picture for someone that makes the proposition look a 
little ridiculous, it is very compelling. His idea of going 150 miles 
an hour through Montana to the border of Idaho and getting off the 
train and getting on this chugalug train that is going to take you 
through Idaho, is a very disruptive picture. That is why Senator Roth 
placed in the legislation this compact that no Governor is going to in 
fact decide to divert money to Amtrak from their highway trust fund 
money if in fact they know that train is going to stop at the Idaho 
border.
  So the reason for the compacts are allowing the States of Washington, 
Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas, to sit down and say, does it make 
sense for us all to do that? If they cannot get it done, they are not 
going to do it. It is a very colorful picture to paint of this train 
speeding and going through Coeur d'Alene, ID, and then coming to a 
screeching halt. It is not realistic and not likely to happen.
  I will end by saying that my friend from Montana has been very, very 
helpful in the past regarding the need to set up a dedicated fund for 
Amtrak, just like there is one for highways, recognizing the national 
need. The point, though, is that if the States conclude that it is 
better to use that small portion of their highway funding for Amtrak, 
and if they want to do that in conjunction with other States in their 
region, we should allow them. We allow them to do that for bicycle 
paths now, Mr. President, and we allow them to do that for walking 
paths. We allow them to go out and buy buses, and we allow them to make 
capital investments for other means. The only thing we do not allow 
them to do is deal with it with regard to intercity rail service.
  I was intrigued by the Senator's remarks, and I am heartened by his 
commitment to taking a half-cent of the gasoline tax, which is now 
going in one [[Page S 8768]] direction but will revert to the way in 
which he suggested--coming up with $600 million for capital for Amtrak 
which, by the way, would meet Amtrak's capital needs on a yearly basis. 
He is correct, it would essentially put them in the black. They would 
be able to run in a very efficient way and increase service, not 
diminish service. I thank him for his suggestion. I look forward--if he 
is still willing--to working with him on the reconciliation bill to do 
that.
  In the meantime, I think this does not create the inconvenience he 
suggests would be created. In large part, the most compelling argument 
he made is disruption, and I think Senator Roth was farsighted in 
laying out in the legislation the compact capability for States, and 
that is the reason for that provision of the legislation.
  I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment. The Roth amendment will grant States the 
flexibility to use highway funds to maintain and revitalize intercity 
passenger rail service. At a time when we are shifting responsibility 
from Washington to the States, we should also allow individual States 
to chose how they would allocate Federal transportation funds and 
select transportation systems that best meet their needs for the 
future.
  Mr. President, my own State of Vermont spent the winter working to 
preserve our link to the national passenger rail system. In December, 
Amtrak announced that all passenger rail service to Vermont would be 
terminated. But in April, after extensive negotiations, the State of 
Vermont and Amtrak announced the establishment of the Vermonter, a new 
day train traveling from Washington, DC, to St. Albans, VT. The key to 
preserving this rail service was that the State of Vermont was willing 
to pay, out of general funds, the operating costs of this train. This 
is how important rail service is to Vermont.
  Earlier in this debate a number of Senators referred to a letter in 
support of this amendment from four Governors, including Governor Dean 
of Vermont. The letter clearly illustrates that States want the 
flexibility to use Federal transportation funds as they chose. Vermont 
would use these funds to support the Vermonter and possibly other 
passenger rail in the State, including a proposed route from White 
Hall, NY, through Rutland to Burlington, VT. Clearly, Vermont and other 
States should have this option. I commend Senator Roth for his 
dedication to this issue and I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
important amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana, 
the comanager of the bill, and I at this time would like to see if we 
can get a unanimous consent request with regard to time limitations on 
the three amendments.
  We start with the amendment now under consideration. It was indicated 
to the managers earlier that Senators Roth and Biden would agree to 
1\1/2\ hours equally divided. We can calculate the amount of time that 
has expired thus far and then determine the time at which the 1\1/2\ 
hours would be completed.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator again go through the 
list?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, I am happy to do that. Mr. President, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia indicated that on his 
amendment, he would be agreeable to 1 hour equally divided. The 
Senators from Delaware, Mr. Roth and Mr. Biden, indicated 1\1/2\ hours 
equally divided. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, said 40 
minutes equally divided on his amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object. Would the manager on 
the Republican side be able to tell me, or would the Parliamentarian be 
able to tell us, how much time remains on the hour and a half at this 
juncture?
  Mr. WARNER. The pending Roth-Biden amendment. We put that question to 
the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-six minutes have been consumed on that 
amendment up to this point.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the distinguished Senator from Virginia be 
willing, if Senator Roth is inclined to agree, to divide the remaining 
time? I ask that before a unanimous consent is agreed to. Frankly, I 
would like a chance----
  Mr. WARNER. I think I have an easier solution. The Senator from 
Montana has expressed my views very clearly. I associate myself with 
his remarks and thereby with the exception of maybe 2 minutes, I will 
forgo such time as I may require or would have required otherwise. So I 
suggest let us agree to the hour and a half--first, how much time does 
the Senator from New Jersey want?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will have to ask the Parliamentarian how much time 
remains on the Roth-Biden amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator indicate how much time he desires?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think we ought to have 20 minutes to further 
discuss the issue, if that is acceptable to Senator Roth.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest that we amend the time agreement and say that 
the pending amendment would be completed in 35 minutes, 20 minutes of 
which would go to the Senators from Delaware, with a due allowance to 
their colleague from New Jersey and the 15 minutes would be divided 
equally between the Senator from Montana and myself; that we may then 
proceed to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] 
who desires an hour on his amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that that be ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Lastly, the Senator from Montana and I now pose a 
unanimous-consent request that the amendment of the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] be concluded in 40 minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. It is the hope of the managers of the bill that the 
Senator from West Virginia could proceed following the disposition of 
the amendment of the Senators from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Perhaps I will use 
less than that. I appreciate it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to mention to my colleagues, 
the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] would like the unanimous-
consent agreement to provide that there be no second-degree amendments 
to his amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I join the Senator from Montana in that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while the Senator from Montana and I are 
up, we are making great progress in resolving the other amendments.
  I urge all Senators who have pending matters to send their staffs 
over at this time to complete the amendments which are outstanding. As 
far as I know, the Senator from Montana and I only know of these three 
amendments subject to time agreements which will require rollcall 
votes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I would like to echo that statement. We are 
close to finishing this bill. It behooves Senators to come over quickly 
and work on their amendments so we can finish this bill tonight. I 
thank the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roth-Biden amendment, 
perhaps to no one's surprise, because I have long had an interest and 
an association with Amtrak.
  This amendment is fairly simple. I think it has been well stated by 
both of the distinguished Senators from Delaware. The central purpose 
of the amendment, as I see it, is to provide the States with 
flexibility--something we constantly urge around here--to use funds 
provided on two of the major Federal transportation formula programs 
for the cost of interstate rail passenger service.
  The thrust of this amendment closely resembles a provision that 
passed the Senate that I sponsored during the debate on the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which we call ISTEA.
  Under the amendment, Governors and State transportation officials [[Page S 
8769]] would be granted the flexibility to use funds provided under the 
surface transportation program [STP], the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Program called CMAQ, for the costs of intercity rail passenger 
service.
  I want to make one thing quite clear. This amendment does not mandate 
that even one cent of highway or transit formula funds will be spent on 
Amtrak service. The only way one penny can even be used for Amtrak, is 
if the Governor and the State transportation officials want it to 
happen.
  When the Congress adopted ISTEA, we made great strides toward 
enhancing the flexibility of State transportation planners in directing 
Federal funds to the types of transportation projects that best suited 
their needs.
  However, in the final conference report, there was a glaring 
omission. That was the flexibility to direct Federal formula funds to 
the cost of intercity rail service.
  The Senate-passed version of ISTEA did include such flexibility for 
the surface transportation service. However, jurisdiction over rail 
programs at the time was under the House Commerce Committee. As such, 
it was very difficult to get members of the House Public Works 
Committee to accept the provision.
  We now have a new opportunity to address this issue, since the House 
has moved jurisdiction over rail matters to our companion committee in 
the House, the newly-named Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  All Members are aware that Amtrak has been facing especially 
difficult financial times over the last year. Amtrak has been required 
to announce several service cuts and route eliminations to reduce or 
eliminate an operating deficit that exceeds $200 million.
  These service cuts and eliminations impacted many States, including 
my own. We heard the distinguished Senator from Montana talk about how 
valuable he viewed Amtrak service in the State of Montana. They have 
had what to some would appear to be a modest cut, yet it was apparently 
deeply felt.
  In the wake of these service cuts, numerous States have been 
scrambling to find their own funding to maintain Amtrak service. Many 
of these same States have asked Members to explain why they can use 
their Federal formula funds for transit purposes but may not use them 
for intercity rail service.
  I do not believe that any Members have a good answer to that 
question. Amtrak's delicate financial situation was brought about 
largely through underinvestment, over a great many years, in our 
national rail network. Our national passenger rail corporation, Amtrak, 
covers a higher percentage of its operating costs than any other 
passenger railroad in the world. It benefits from an operating subsidy 
like every other passenger rail system in the world, but at a smaller 
subsidy per passenger than any of the others. Compared to our 
industrial competitors, we spend a pittance on our national rail 
network.
  Within the next 5 years, France plans to spend nearly $125 billion on 
intercity rail enhancements. If anyone has a chance to see the TGB and 
see it zip along the countryside at a cool 180 or 200 miles per hour in 
comfort, speed, attracting lots and lots of passenger, one would see 
why the investment is justified.
  Germany will spend over $70 billion during the same period. By the 
end of this century, Sweden, a relatively tiny country, plans to invest 
as much in rail enhancement as it does in highways.
  Just within the European Community, high speed rail investment is 
likely to top $100 billion by the year 2000. On average, European 
countries invest between 1 and 1.5 percent of their GDP in intercity 
rail. That compares with our country where we invest roughly five one-
hundredths of one percent on our national passenger rail service, 
Amtrak.
  No one is suggesting we use highway funds to embark on a major rail 
investment program. However, Amtrak's recent financial difficulties 
make it clear that we must take action to ensure the future of a 
national rail network, to ensure that our Nation has a balanced 
transportation system.
  This amendment takes a small step to allow the Nation's Governors--
and we are talking about flexibility, and we are talking about 
decisions made within the State--the option of preserving a balanced 
transportation program in their States. If they do not want to use any 
of it for Amtrak, they need not do it.
  Throughout our recent political debates over the role of the Federal 
Government, there has been increased attention to the benefits of 
giving States enhanced responsibility while simultaneously giving them 
increased flexibility. This model, it is assumed, will provide for a 
more efficient public service transportation system.
  This is clearly one area where this model can benefit the traveling 
public across the Nation by giving Governors access to the full range 
of transportation options.
  I want to speak about the region of the country I come from, the 
Northeast. I can tell my colleagues--and Senator Biden and Senator Roth 
are only too familiar with this--that in my part of the country, Amtrak 
is absolutely indispensable. It is one of the most cost-effective 
investments of Federal transportation dollars in the region. Fully half 
of Amtrak's ridership travels on the Northeast corridor, the most 
congested transportation corridor in the United States.
  Now, all the highway spending in the world could not overcome the 
lack of adequate right of way to construct enough lane miles to 
accommodate all Northeast corridor Amtrak traffic. There is simply not 
the capacity in the already congested airports of the Northeast to 
accommodate an additional 11 million passengers annually.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I think, to underline the point made by my 
distinguished colleague, it is important to understand, for example, in 
the case of New Jersey, the ridership in 1994 was 1,369,000; in 
Maryland, 1,448,000; in my little State of Delaware, 607,000.
 Is there any way we could replace that travel by building additional 
roads?

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is no way on Earth, as they say, to provide the 
capacity for additional highway lanes. But, further, I say to the 
distinguished Senator, Amtrak currently carries half of the combined 
air-rail market between New York and Washington, DC. Were Amtrak 
service to disappear, listen to this, it would add the equivalent of 
10,000 fully booked DC-9's to the already congested air traffic in the 
Northeast. There is not enough room on the highways or on Earth. And 
there is not enough room at the airports or in the skies to accommodate 
such growth.
  What a disaster it would be for the economy of the Northeast as well 
as the country as a whole. It is already almost impossible to move on 
our highways and get in and out of the airports during the peak holiday 
seasons. The noteworthy ones, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, 
Father's Day--you name it, it would be a disaster. If you eliminate 
Amtrak service in the Northeast, traffic on the highways and at the 
airports will come virtually to a dead stop. So we need to find ways to 
expand our passenger rail infrastructure, not to kill it. I am pleased 
to hear the Senator from Montana talk positively about Amtrak. We have 
to find the funding for it.
  The GAO estimates that productivity losses due to highway congestion 
each year cost our Nation $100 billion, each year. DOT estimates that 
in our 39 largest cities, traffic congestion costs $44 billion 
annually. And absent any effort to expand our rail capacity and other 
nonhighway alternatives, highway use is expected to grow at such a 
rapid rate that all the increased highway spending that we could muster 
could not handle the growth and the congestion.
  The Senator from Montana made a good point. He said if you do not 
claim your highway use, the construction and so forth, enough in 
advance, you could wind up with a patchwork quilt of things. So it is 
with Amtrak. That is why I think the Senator from Delaware provided for 
a compact arrangement between States, to be able, hopefully, to agree 
on a program that fits the needs of the several States in the area.
  The situation is just as bad at our Nation's airports. Winglock, 
congestion at our airports, costs our economy roughly $5 billion a 
year. It is expected air travel delays will only worsen over the next 
several years. Within the next [[Page S 8770]] 5 years, most major 
airports will exceed 80,000 hours of annual flight delays each year. In 
short, it is a major, major problem.
  Completing the electrification of the Northeast corridor, which is 
virtually underway, though not specific construction--but a lot of 
engineering, a lot of the planning and some of the equipment has been 
ordered--is expected to attract 3 million additional passengers 
annually between New York City and Boston to our rail system, taking 
them off already congested highways and airways.
  Completing the electrification will alleviate the need for creating 
highway capacity for 324,000--the numbers are staggering--324,000 
drivers each year and the cost of expanding aviation capacity to 
accommodate 50 daily New York-Boston flights. The cost of this rail 
project is, as we say, peanuts compared to the Federal funds that would 
be required to be invested to achieve the highway and aviation capacity 
that would be otherwise needed.
  The prospect of expanding Logan Airport in Boston runs into multiple 
billions of dollars just in that one place.
  I am in contact, and have been in contact, with Governors along the 
Northeast corridor, almost all of them--almost all of them--Republican. 
They recognize the critical value of Amtrak to our region. They 
currently have the opportunity to use discrete amounts of their Federal 
formula funds for costs associated with transit service in the region, 
and Amtrak service should be no exception.
  In sum, it is very obvious that those who think in detail about 
transportation needs--to those who come from the northeastern part of 
the country, those who come from all parts of the country, because 
there are not any Senators that I have had a chance to talk to where 
there is some Amtrak service who do not want to either expand it or 
continue it--I have not heard any of them volunteer to eliminate the 
Amtrak service, as sparse as it may be within their State.
  So I hope we will be able to provide this flexibility. We are not 
taking anything away from anybody. If the question is put, is there 
sufficient funding for bridges? Heck, no, there is not sufficient 
funding for bridges in our society. Even to repair those that are 
functionally obsolete, there is not enough money for it.
  Is there enough to maintain the highways in the condition we would 
like to see them? No, there is not. But if we lose Amtrak and we lose 
the infrastructure that is associated with national rail passenger 
service, we will be in far worse shape because at least if we keep the 
intercity railroad going, we have a chance to buck the trend and be 
able to accommodate the traveling needs of the public.
  I hope this amendment will carry. I commend Senators Roth and Biden 
for bringing it to this point. I think it is timely. There are so many 
services that we would like to see operating in the transportation 
infrastructure network of our country that are just not going to be 
able to be funded. I know for some Senators in some of the Western 
States, something called essential air service is a critical factor. We 
want to try to fund it wherever we can.
  All of these are competing for funding. All of these modes are 
competing for funding, but this one, national rail service, national 
passenger rail service, is an essential factor if we are going to think 
about a balanced transportation network in this country of ours.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Roth-Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will make a couple of points that I 
think are worth knowing about this amendment.
  First of all, this amendment is opposed by a lot of groups. Let me 
read a letter from Keep America Moving. It is an organization 
interested in our highways. I will just read the relevant part:

       The undersigned organizations believe the National Highway 
     System is vital to America's economic and defense needs. We 
     urge you to support prompt passage of the NHS and oppose any 
     efforts to subsidize Amtrak with highway funds.
           Sincerely,
       American Automobile Manufacturers Association.
       American Bus Association.
       American Consulting Engineer Council.
       American Movers Conference.
       American Petroleum Institute.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
       American Trucking Associations.
       Ashland Inc.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Highway Users Federation.
       National Asphalt Pavement Association.
       National Association of Manufacturers.

  There are a lot more. There is a lot of opposition, I might say, to 
this amendment.
  Second, I wondered what the donor States think of this amendment. Mr. 
President, about half of the States of our country are so-called donor 
States. They just get the willies when they realize they are spending 
more money on gasoline taxes than they are getting back in highway 
funds. Now, what are they going to think, the donor States--here is a 
whole other opportunity to spend their money on another State?
  I frankly think the donor States would not be very happy about this 
amendment. The donor States, about half of our States, would get very 
nervous, in fact upset with the idea of spending more of their money on 
some other State, in this case for Amtrak.
  Also, let me sum up by saying this is not going to work, this 
proposal. There are 46 States in our country that have Amtrak. As I 
hear the proponents of this amendment, there are 46 different horses 
before the Amtrak cart; 46 different States have an idea how to improve 
Amtrak, 46 different States. Capital expenditures, operating 
expenditures--who knows what?
  Amtrak is a national system. It is not a separate 46-State system, it 
is a national system. That is why I again come back to the idea I 
proposed earlier. I want very much to help the Senator from New Jersey 
by taking that half-cent that is, in 1996, scheduled to go to the mass 
transit account which already has a $5 billion surplus, and say 
dedicate that half-cent instead to Amtrak. It is $600 million. That is 
a national solution to a national problem, rather than a 46-State 
solution to a national problem.
  I understand the provisions in the amendment--compacts and all that. 
But those compacts are not going to work. States are not going to agree 
to those compacts. If they do not work, then they do not work. Then we 
are not solving the problem.
  I think, frankly, it is an idea that has surface appeal and it is an 
idea that is not going to work, and I suggest we therefore agree to 
this amendment. Dig down, agree to it, get the amendment agreed to that 
I am suggesting, namely that half-cent dedicated to Amtrak.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. How much time do I have left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes and 22 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, everything my friend from Montana said up 
to a moment ago was basically correct when he said how are the donor 
States going to feel having another way to spend more money? No more 
money can be spent for this amendment, No. 1. No. 2, we are a donor 
State. We are for it. No. 3, the idea that somehow there are other ways 
to spend the money meaning that we are going to be taking money from 
one State and spending it another State is not accurate. I do not think 
he meant to say that. He may have left that impression.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. If the Senator will yield, what I 
meant to say is that it is not more money, but a donor State spending 
money for more purposes.
  Mr. BIDEN. We are a donor State. We like that opportunity.
  Lastly, the list from the cement manufacturers to the highway people, 
it seems like 100 years ago when I first got here in 1973 and was on 
the committee that the Senator is now the ranking member. Then every 
one of those interests were against anything that had to do with 
transportation other than highway. They always will, they always were, 
they always will be, and they always have. They were [[Page S 
8771]] against the ISTEA provision that is related to transportation 
other than highways. They are against anything that does not lay 
cement, macadam, or concrete. It is real simple. Do not blame them. It 
is all there, the naked self-interest which is the way this place runs. 
OK, but the idea that they are against this, they never have been for 
anything at all progressive that related to any mode of transportation 
other than laying concrete, so help me goodness.
  I yield the 10 seconds I probably have left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will yield for one question, does he 
think the automobile manufacturers are not objecting when they want to 
preserve all of the funding that we could muster for highways?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the automobile manufacturers--my 
father having been an automobile salesmen his entire life--are 
honorable, decent people who know their self-interest, and I respect 
them for that.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to emphasize once more that the Roth-
Biden amendment requires no new spending. It does not change any 
Federal transportation formula. It does not require a State to spend 
any money on Amtrak or intercity rail. It simply provides States with 
the flexibility to support Amtrak with funds they already qualify for, 
and it responds to a real need, a real need expressed by Governors 
around the country who are seeking the means to support Amtrak services 
that have been cut back. It promotes State responsibility in support of 
our national transportation system.
  Current prohibitions against using Federal funds for Amtrak frankly 
skews public policy away from a cleaner, cheaper option--intercity 
rail. Highway user fees, gas taxes, already go to fund many other 
surface transportation options from mass transit to hike and bike 
trails. Only intercity rail is cut off from those funds. States cannot 
now choose to support Amtrak with those funds.
  At the same time that they are losing Amtrak services, many of our 
States find themselves with unused surpluses and programs they do not 
need.
  So the goal of our highway bill is to increase State and local 
flexibility to improve the efficiency of our national transportation 
system.
  This amendment would promote that goal and remove what I believe to 
be an arbitrary restriction on States' transportation choices.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have done a great deal of work on this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Roth-Biden amendment to 
make Amtrak activities, including operating expenses and acquisition of 
equipment, eligible for National Highway System funds.
  If the amendment before us is adopted, it will reverse the momentum 
and progress of the National Highway System and the purpose of this 
bill. It would drain the gas out of our tank.
  The NHS will ensure that our surface transportation network performs 
to maximum efficiency. In order to meet this maximum level of 
efficiency, the highway trust fund must remain in tact to meet the 
funding requirements needed to meet our urgent number of highway and 
bridge needs.
  The American taxpayer pays into the highway trust fund through gas 
taxes. We must ``keep faith'' with our citizens to ensure that existing 
roads are maintained and where necessary new roads are constructed. 
Those who have paid into the highway trust fund expect that their fuel 
taxes will be available to respond to our highway needs.
  While there is no doubt that Amtrak has started to make some needed 
restructuring improvements in their day-to-day operations, it is clear 
that a complete overhaul of the system is necessary.
  As the Federal Highway Administration has stated that the highway 
trust fund cannot begin to meet existing highway and bridge needs, it 
is not wise to dilute the effectiveness of these limited dollars. It is 
estimated that $290 billion is needed to fund the backlog of repairs 
and improvements to the current highway system. By diverting any of the 
$6.5 billion annual authorization for the National Highway System to 
Amtrak, we would be placing our roads and bridges in jeopardy.
  At a time when transportation infrastructure dollars are so 
constrained, priority funding should go
 to those areas of transportation which will move the largest number of 
goods and people across the country. The NHS roads carry about 40 
percent of all highway traffic and 75 percent of all commercial truck 
traffic. Over 80 percent of intercity passenger miles are traveled on 
our highway system, not on Amtrak. In fact, Amtrak carries less than 1 
percent of all intercity passenger rail miles.

  I have in the past and will continue to be a supporter of Amtrak. It 
is undeniable, however, that Amtrak currently carries a very low 
percentage of all intercity passenger miles traveled in comparison to 
our Nations highways. The highway trust fund, to which rail passengers 
have made no contributions, must not be used for this purpose.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain 
documents relating to my comments.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1995.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce Federation of 220,000 businesses, 3,000 state and 
     local chambers of commerce, 1,200 trade and professional 
     associations, and 72 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, I 
     urge you to oppose any effort to include Amtrak routes in the 
     National Highway System (NHS).
       Senators Roth, Biden, Murray, Moynihan, Jeffords, and Leahy 
     have introduced legislation (S. 733) that would provide 
     states with the flexibility to shift Highway Trust Fund 
     dollars to Amtrak's capital and operating budgets. We are 
     concerned that portions of this bill may be offered as an 
     amendment during the Environment and Public Works Committee 
     markup of S. 440, the ``National Highway System Designation 
     Act of 1995.'' Given that the United States is investing 
     significantly less than the amount needed to maintain our 
     roads and bridges, a subsidy for Amtrak, via Highway Trust 
     Fund dollars, would be an affront to many of our members who 
     expect their fuel taxes to be spent for their intended 
     purpose.
       In these times of budgetary cutbacks and competing demands, 
     the NHS represents good government. It gives priority funding 
     to those roads that are most important to our commercial and 
     personal commuting needs. In fact, the NHS only accounts for 
     four percent of America's total system mileage, yet will 
     carry 40 percent of all travel and 75 percent of all 
     commercial vehicle travel. Also, 95 percent of all businesses 
     will be within five miles of the NHS. Moreover, the NHS 
     represents a bottom-up approach, whereby state and local 
     officials played an instrumental role in formulating the 
     Department of Transportation's designation map.
       However, if an Amtrak amendment is successful, the 
     Chamber's support for S. 440 would be in serious jeopardy. In 
     particular, we are very concerned about the findings 
     contained in a February 1995 General Accounting Office report 
     on Amtrak which shows that:
       Not a single Amtrak route is profitable when capital costs 
     are taken into account; revenues cover only 65 percent of the 
     cost;
       Amtrak will need $4 billion in capital investment just to 
     maintain its equipment and facilities;
       Over the next five years, Amtrak will accrue a $1.3 billion 
     operating deficit, despite its revenues and its $1 billion-
     per-year federal subsidy; and
       Despite service cutbacks and other cost-cutting measures, 
     Amtrak is unlikely to close its deficit gap.
       The September 30, 1995 deadline for passage is coming 
     quickly. The needs of the transportation infrastructure are 
     too important to let this opportunity pass by. Failure to act 
     will mean losses of $13 billion in NHS funds to states for 
     fiscal 1996 and 1997, which could translate into fewer 
     economic benefits for the economy. Because the NHS 
     designation represents a long-term commitment to our 
     country's productivity and competitiveness, the Chamber urges 
     passage of a bill that focuses on the designation and 
     respectfully requests the defeat of any weakening amendments, 
     such as language contained in S. 733.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                                                    ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1995.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation & Infrastructure, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: The 4,000 members of the American Road 
     & Transportation Builders Association commend you for your 
     leadership in moving to secure Senate approval of S. 440 
     designating routes of the National Highway System. We 
     strongly support [[Page S 8772]] prompt enactment of this 
     legislation to avoid any possibility of missing the September 
     30 deadline and the resulting loss to the states of a 
     substantial part of their federal highway funding.
       We fully agree with your statement at the time you 
     introduced S. 440 that nothing should stand in the way of its 
     enactment. We are concerned, however, that other legislation 
     being prepared for introduction would constitute an 
     impediment to the NHS bill. That legislation, expected to be 
     introduced by Senators Roth and Biden, would make the Amtrak 
     passenger rail system eligible for NHS funds. Inclusion of 
     Amtrak funding eligibility in the NHS bill would cause ARTBA 
     to seriously reconsider its support of this legislation and 
     would result, we believe, in a general erosion of support by 
     other key groups.
       The NHS is designed to be the principal focus of federal 
     highway investment well into the next century. This system 
     carries a large proportion of the nation's commercial and 
     personal traffic. It needs billions of dollars of investment 
     to allow it to perform this mission effectively and 
     economically. The resources of the Highway Trust Fund already 
     are inadequate to meet highway and bridge needs, estimated in 
     1993 by the Department of Transportation at $290 billion. Any 
     further diversion of user fees paid by the nation's highway 
     users would be totally unacceptable.
       Amtrak is an important component of the American 
     transportation system. Congress should provide it with 
     financial assistance--from the general treasury--to the 
     extent it deems necessary and prudent. The Highway Trust 
     Fund, to which rail users make no contribution, should not be 
     used for this purpose.
       Mr. Chairman, ARTBA is ready to work with you in securing 
     enactment of NHS designation legislation. We strongly oppose, 
     however, the inclusion in that bill of any provision that 
     would dilute trust fund revenues by making them available to 
     Amtrak or for any other use not currently authorized.
           Sincerely,
                                                   T. Peter Ruane,
     President and CEO.
                                                                    ____

                                                 American Trucking


                                           Associations, Inc.,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 5, 1995.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On April 27th, Senator Roth (R-DE) 
     introduced S. 733, legislation that would add Amtrak routes 
     to the National Highway System, in effect, making the rail 
     system eligible for capital and operating subsidies funded 
     through Highway Trust Fund receipts. This proposal is bad law 
     and bad policy and should not be added to NHS approval bill, 
     S. 440. Adding S. 733 would create a contradiction to the 
     committee's long-stated goal of passing a clean NHS bill. 
     Further, this diversion would create unsafe highways, not 
     meet national transportation needs, and would undercut 
     capital funding.
       I urge you to reject this amendment for the following 
     reasons:
       It would create unsafe highways. According to the Federal 
     Highway Administration, there is not enough money in the 
     Highway Trust Fund to meet existing highway and bridge needs. 
     Specifically, $290 billion is needed to fund the backlog of 
     repairs and improvements to the system. Diverting funds from 
     these needs creates a real safety problem, such as when the 
     I-95 bridge in Connecticut failed in 1983.
       It would not meet national transportation needs. The 
     intercity rail passenger system only carries .3% (one-third 
     of one percent) of intercity passengers. It does not move any 
     of America's freight. Diverting funds to pay Amtrak expenses 
     will not significantly benefit auto congestion. It would also 
     establish a major highway user subsidy unfair to companies 
     that carry intercity passengers--the bus and aviation 
     industries.
       It undercuts capital funding. The Roth bill would allow up 
     to $3.25 billion a year of capital funding to be used for 
     Amtrak salaries and operating costs. Faced with an imminent 
     and unplanned loss of a state's intercity rail service, a 
     state would be under extreme political pressure to 
     shortchange its multi-year capital improvement program and 
     pay the operating costs. The future suffers.
       The Roth proposal fails to solve Amtrak's underlying 
     problems. In fact, it seems to sustain them. Amtrak was 
     conceived with the objective that it would meet its expenses 
     from operating revenues. Instead, it has sought ever 
     increasing federal and state subsidies and has slashed 
     services. While recognizing that some intercity routes truly 
     make sense, replacing the General Fund subsidy to Amtrak with 
     a highway user subsidy fails to solve its dilemma.
       Please join me in preserving the use of highway user 
     revenues for highway users. I look forward to working with 
     you and your staff on this important issue. If you have any 
     questions, please call
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas J. Donohue,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Asphalt


                                         Pavement Association,

                                       Lanham, MD, April 25, 1995.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: The National Asphalt Pavement 
     Association (NAPA) opposes the Roth/Biden bill to make Amtrak 
     part of the National Highway System (NHS). This proposal 
     constitutes an enormous potential diversion of highway user 
     fees into subsidized passenger rail service that, according 
     to Amtrak's own estimates, will post a $1.3 billion operating 
     deficit over the next five years.
       The NHS is designed to focus federal highway dollars on 
     highways and bridges that are most important for safely 
     moving people and goods in interstate commerce. The nation's 
     highway users should not be tapped to pay the bill for a 
     passenger rail system that provides limited transportation 
     value.
       NAPA is the national trade association exclusively 
     representing the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Industry. We have a 
     membership of nearly 800 corporations, most of which are HMA 
     producers and paving contractors. The majority of our members 
     are small businesses, and our member firms produce 
     approximately 70 to 75 percent of the total HMA produced in 
     the United States annually.
       NAPA urges you to oppose the Roth/Biden proposal.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Acott,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                     Highway Users Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 1995.
     Hon. John Chafee,
     Chairman, Environment & Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Environment & Public Works 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus: The Highway Users 
     Federation strongly opposes any effort to include Amtrak 
     routes in the National Highway System (NHS). Senators Roth, 
     Biden, Murray, Moynihan, Jeffords, and Leahy have introduced 
     S. 733 to do just that, and we understand elements of their 
     bill may be offered as an amendment during Environment and 
     Public Works Committee mark up of S. 440, the ``National 
     Highway System Designation Act of 1995.'' In my judgment, if 
     such an amendment were approved, the current widespread 
     support for the NHS in the private sector would be seriously 
     eroded.
       The NHS is intended to focus federal highway dollars on 
     those roads that are most important for meeting America's 
     personal, commercial, and defense mobility needs. S. 440 
     designates the routes identified by Transportation Secretary 
     Federico Pena, based on the recommendations of state and 
     local officials. These roads carry 40% of all highway traffic 
     and 75% of commercial truck travel. Over 80% of intercity 
     passenger miles are traveled by highway, and NHS routes carry 
     the bulk of that passenger service.
       In stark contrast, Amtrak carries just three-tenths of one 
     percent (0.3%) of all intercity passenger miles traveled. 
     Ridership and revenues continue to fall, according to a 
     February 1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, and 
     even in the Northeast Corridor where the railroad gets its 
     heaviest ridership, revenues cover only 65% of costs. Not a 
     single Amtrak route is profitable when capital costs are 
     taken into account, GAO says. Over the next five years, 
     Amtrak will accrue a $1.3 billion operating deficit--even 
     after accounting for both its revenues and a billion dollar-
     per-year federal subsidy. In addition, the railroad will need 
     $4 billion in capital investments just to keep its facilities 
     and equipment in working order.
       It's clear why Amtrak's leadership and supporters would be 
     looking for a financial prop. GAO says, however, that even 
     the service cutbacks and other cost-cutting measures recently 
     instituted by Amtrak are unlikely to close the deficit gap, 
     and Congress should consider whether the railroad's 
     ``original mission of providing nationwide intercity 
     passenger rail service'' is still appropriate.
       Whatever decision Congress makes with respect to Amtrak, 
     the Highway Trust Fund should not be tapped for the subsidy. 
     The U.S. already invests about $13 billion per year less than 
     the amount needed just to maintain conditions on our roads 
     and bridges, according to the Federal Highway Administration. 
     This under-investment has resulted in a current backlog of 
     $290 billion in needed road and bridge repairs. There simply 
     is not enough money to meet our fundamental transportation 
     needs, let alone enough to subsidize a passenger rail system 
     that shows no promise of ever paying its own way.
       Along with other organizations participating in the Keep 
     America Moving coalition, an alliance of businesses, trade 
     associations, and consumer groups dedicated to prompt 
     enactment of the NHS, we are building constituent and media 
     support for the NHS. We believe the bipartisan list of S. 440 
     cosponsors, including 15 Environment and Public Works 
     Committee members, reflects the widespread public support for 
     the NHS, and we hope the legislation ultimately reported by 
     the committee will enjoy the same breadth and depth of 
     support.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William D. Fay,
                                                        President.
     [[Page S 8773]]
     
     
                                                                    ____
                            American Portland Cement Alliance,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 1995.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear John: The American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA), 
     which represents virtually all U.S. cement production, would 
     like to thank you for your leadership on S. 440, the 
     ``National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.''
       In light of positive developments, APCA has become aware of 
     an amendment which Senator Roth may offer to make Amtrak 
     routes eligible for federal highway funds. APCA strongly 
     opposes the Roth amendment.
       Motorists' fuel taxes paid into the highway trust fund 
     should be used to construct and maintain our nation's 
     highways and bridges--not to subsidize passenger rail 
     service. The nation's highway system has a $290 billion 
     backlog of road and bridge needs and cannot afford to spend 
     limited dollars for other than their intended purpose.
       In addition, Amtrak carries only three tenths of one 
     percent (0.3%) of all intercity passenger miles traveled and 
     no freight. In contrast, highways carry over 80% of intercity 
     passenger miles and nearly 80% of the dollar volume of all 
     freight moved in the United States.
       APCA urges you to continue your support for prompt passage 
     of S. 440, and to oppose an amendment to subsidize Amtrak 
     with highway funds.
           Sincerely,
                                             Richard C. Creighton,
                                                        President.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not feel that the various 
organizations in opposition to this amendment have in any way tried to 
state their case other than in a straightforward way. I have received--
perhaps the other managers have--a letter from the chamber of commerce.
  They state very succinctly in here the following:

       However, if an Amtrak amendment is successful, the 
     Chamber's support for S. 440 would be in serious jeopardy. In 
     particular, we are very concerned about the findings 
     contained in a February 1995 General Accounting Office report 
     on Amtrak which shows that:
       Not a single Amtrak route is profitable when capital costs 
     are taken into account, revenues cover only 65 percent of the 
     cost;
       Amtrak will need $4 billion in capital investment just to 
     maintain its equipment and facilities;
       Over the next five years, Amtrak will accrue a $1.3 billion 
     operating deficit, despite its revenues and its $1 billion-
     per-year federal subsidy; and
       Despite service cutbacks and other cost-cutting measures. 
     Amtrak is unlikely to close its deficit gap.
       The September 30, 1995 deadline for passage is coming 
     quickly. The needs of the transportation infrastructure are 
     too important to let this opportunity pass by.

  They continue, I think, in a very responsible, straightforward way.
  I do not find that those petitions to try to intervene on behalf of 
those of us who feel that this amendment is not wise have in any way 
gone beyond the facts and how they interpret their facts in terms of 
their own interests.
  So, I conclude by saying that the statements by the Senator from 
Montana, particularly those referencing the gas tax--and the citizens 
go up to the tank. I happen to be from a donor State and represent a 
donor State. They pay that Federal gas tax knowing or hoping that an 
equal percentage would come back to the State, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. Regrettably, it does not. We do not get back in my judgment 
all that we ought to in a fair proportion. But that battle is for 
another day, and I will join others in waging it.
  Consequently, when a rider for Amtrak goes down and gets on the train 
he or she does not pay a similar tax as does the driver of an 
automobile.
  So this amendment, in effect, would let Amtrak back up to that 
driver's gas tank and drain out the gas. It would take the gas out of 
the momentum that we now have for this particular highway program, and 
we have good momentum. I do not want to see that happen. This bill will 
add to that momentum.
  So accordingly, Mr. President, I will suggest and urge my colleagues 
not to accept this amendment.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the managers, we yield back our time.
  Mr. President, I move to table and 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. The question is on the motion to table.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, leadership requests a quorum call be 
placed, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleagues from Delaware. This amendment reinforces the flexibility 
that the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, so-called 
ISTEA, gave to the States in setting the States' transportation 
policies.
  That landmark legislation allowed States and local officials, for the 
first, time to determine how they want to spend their money. They can 
spend it on highway projects or transit facilities or other alternative 
transportation methods, even to the extent of bikeways and pedestrian 
walkways.
  The amendment by the Senators from Delaware builds on this 
flexibility by enabling the States to direct their so-called congestion 
mitigation and air quality and surface transportation program funds to 
intercity passenger rail.
  Passenger rail service is an important national resource. It is 
particularly important to the region of the country that includes my 
State, Rhode Island. I cannot imagine what the transportation situation 
would be on the east coast without passenger rail service, other than 
total gridlock. The highways and airways are already extremely 
congested and there is little room to build more highways and airports. 
The cost of building major new facilities in this part of the country 
would be prohibitive.
  We have one example now in this part of the country--the central 
artery in Boston. The cost of improving 3.5 miles of highway and 
building a 3.5 mile third harbor crossing is now estimated at $8 
billion and rising--over $2 billion a mile. Imagine what kind of 
passenger rail service we could have for $8 billion.
  Yet, we are clearly in danger of losing passenger rail service in 
this country, and I believe that would be a terrible mistake.
  Over the past year, Amtrak has been in the process of restructuring 
its operations. So far, the results are encouraging. Thomas Downs, the 
president and chairman of the board of Amtrak, testified before the 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee last Friday that Amtrak is ahead of 
schedule in achieving a net savings of $173 million for fiscal year 
1995. Amtrak is also working on innovative financing options, such as 
partnerships with State and local officials.
  Amtrak has a pivotal role to play in the Nation's transportation 
system. Intercity passenger rail is a vital link between automobile, 
bus, transit, and aviation transportation. Although the bill before us 
is entitled the National Highway System Designation Act, the NHS 
designation is a part of a multimodal national transportation system. 
We must not forget the big picture.
  I want to point out just a few of the benefits of passenger rail.
  First, passenger rail travel has made a significant contribution to 
the economic growth and prosperity of our Nation. Rail service in the 
Northeast corridor, for instance, has contributed to a major expansion 
of economic opportunities in the areas of Boston, New York, and 
Washington. It has also given other smaller cities like New Haven, CT; 
Trenton, NJ; and Providence, RI, the ability to take advantage of 
economic development opportunities that they would not otherwise have.
  Second, Amtrak provides travelers with a fuel efficient alternative 
to crowded highways and airways. As our highways and airways become 
more and more congested, travelers need more choices in mobility. Rail 
provides an environmentally sound alternate mode of travel to the 
automobile.
  Finally, there is the larger issue of State flexibility. One of the 
central principles of the surface transportation law is that State and 
local officials should have as much flexibility as possible to spend 
Federal-aid funds on their highest priorities.
  Another important ISTEA principle is that the best transportation 
system [[Page S 8774]] is an intermodal system. All modes of 
transportation must be considered when funding decisions are made. The 
Senators' amendment will give States the flexibility to consider the 
needs of passenger rail when they make their transportation funding 
decisions.
  The amendment of the Senators from Delaware is in keeping with the 
flexibility that is so important for the success of the surface 
transportation law. It does not require the States to spend any of 
their ISTEA money on passenger rail. It simply provides the States with 
another tool to provide passenger rail service if they choose to do so.
  It is my hope that the amendments by the Senators from Delaware will 
be approved.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to propose the following 
unanimous-consent request: That the present amendment be laid aside, 
and that the Senate then proceed to the amendment by the Senator from 
West Virginia, and if the yeas and nays are ordered on it, that the 
vote be set aside, and the Senate then proceed to debate on the 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], and at the 
conclusion of that all three votes occur in sequence but that should 
not occur before the hour of 7:40 p.m.
  I now yield to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I inquire of my good friend and colleague 
from Virginia, I wonder if that could be further amended so that there 
could be other amendments considered prior to the time indicated in the 
event not all time is used on those two amendments, that is, the 
amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia as well as the 
amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I did not understand the Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is possible that not all time will be used.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. And if there is a period of time 
following the sequence of these amendments, then the Senate could turn 
to consideration of other amendments but the understanding is no votes 
would occur before the hour of 7:40 p.m.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Right. Correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the vote 
on my amendment be up or down--up or down on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would recommend that that be the case.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as so 
modified? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require 
from the time allotted to me.


                           Amendment No. 1446

  (Purpose: To require the withholding of Federal highway funds if a 
State fails to provide that any minor in the State who operates a motor 
 vehicle and has a blood alcohol concentration above a specified level 
 shall be considered to be driving while intoxicated or driving under 
                       the influence of alcohol)

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Exon, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Biden, Mr. Glenn, Mr. 
     Hatfield, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Simon, 
     Mr. Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Pell, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1446.

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

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED MINORS.

       Section 158(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated minors.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 1998.--If the condition described in 
     subparagraph (C) exists in a State as of October 1, 1998, the 
     Secretary shall withhold, on October 1, 1998, 5 percent of 
     the amount required to be apportioned to the State under each 
     of paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of section 104(b) for 
     fiscal year 1998.
       ``(B) Fiscal years thereafter.--If the condition described 
     in subparagraph (C) exists in a State as of October 1, 1999, 
     or any October 1 thereafter, the Secretary shall withhold, on 
     that October 1, 10 percent of the amount required to be 
     apportioned to the State under each of paragraphs (1), (2), 
     (5), and (6) of section 104(b) for the fiscal year beginning 
     on that October 1.
       ``(C) Condition.--The condition referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) is that an individual under the age 
     of 21 who has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent 
     or greater when operating a motor vehicle in the State is not 
     considered to be driving while intoxicated or driving under 
     the influence of alcohol.''; and
       ``(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``After the first 
     year'' and inserting ``Purchase and possession of alcoholic 
     beverages by minors''.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of 
myself and the following Senators: Senators Exon, Bumpers, Bradley, 
Biden, Glenn, Hatfield, Dodd, Lautenberg, Johnston, Simon, Inouye, 
Rockefeller, Boxer, Daschle, Feinstein, Moynihan, Reid, Pryor, Harkin, 
Stevens, Hatch, Levin, Baucus, Wellstone, Dorgan, Moseley-Braun, and 
Pell.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia add the Senator from Virginia as a cosponsor?
  Mr. BYRD. I would be delighted. I ask unanimous consent that I might 
add the able Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, one of the most important and pressing 
problems on our Nation's highways is teenage drunk driving. Today I am 
offering an amendment that seeks to address this persistent, serious, 
and tragic problem. My amendment would require that the States adopt a 
``zero tolerance'' standard for drivers under the age of 21. If States 
fail to adopt a driving-while-intoxicated [DWI] or a driving-while-
under-the-influence [DUI] policy of .02 percent of blood-alcohol 
content for minors, they will lose 5 percent of their Federal highway 
construction funds in fiscal year 1998, and 10 percent of their Federal 
highway funds every year thereafter.
  My amendment builds upon one of the most important--and successful--
Federal initiatives related to alcohol and minors--a 1984 requirement 
that States adopt laws prohibiting the possession or purchase of 
alcohol by anyone younger than twenty-one years of age. Any State not 
in compliance by September 30, 1985, forfeited 5 percent of its Federal 
highway construction funds for that year and 10 percent of its Federal 
highway construction funds for each year of non-compliance thereafter. 
Before enactment of this law, only 18 States had a 21-year-old minimum 
drinking age. Today, all States have 21-year-old drinking age.
  So that single action by the Congress and the States has 
significantly helped to reduce the carnage on our Nation's highways. 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] has 
estimated that the 21-year-old drinking age has saved 8,400 lives since 
1984. Further, in 1993, the last year for which statistics are 
available, the 21-year-old drinking age requirement is estimated to 
have saved $1.8 billion in economic costs to our society.
  The Congress should now take the next step, and explicitly state, as 
a matter of law, that minors are not allowed to drink and drive. My 
amendment is simple and straight forward--since it is illegal for 
minors under the age of 21 to possess or purchase alcohol--that is, 
publicly possess or purchase alcohol--any level of consumption that is 
coupled with driving should be treated, under the requirements of each 
State's laws, as driving while intoxicated.
   [[Page S 8775]] This amendment sets the right example, and tells our 
Nation's youth that drinking and driving is wrong; that it is a 
violation of law; and that it will be appropriately punished according 
to the laws of each State. To oppose this amendment is to send exactly 
the opposite message: namely, that it is acceptable and legal for a 
minor, who has been drinking, to drive a car, as long as that minor is 
under the DWI or DUI blood alcohol level for an adult over the age of 
21.
  In other words, my amendment corrects a glaring loophole in Federal 
law. Consider the example of a State that follows Federal law to the 
letter, and has made it illegal for a minor under 21 years of age to 
publicly possess or purchase alcohol. That same State, let us say, has 
a typical driving-while-intoxicated standard of a blood alcohol level 
of 0.10 percent. A minor in that State could consume alcohol in a 
private residence, and then legally drive an automobile, as long as the 
minor's blood alcohol level registers below 0.10 percent.
  Under my amendment, the message to that minor is clear: you cannot 
drink and drive. Period. And, hopefully, this type of tough and 
absolute requirement in the law will encourage our young people not to 
drink at all.
  As I explained, the passage of the Federal 21-year drinking age in 
1984 led to the enactment of that standard by all 50 States. It is my 
expectation and hope that if my amendment were adopted, it would have 
similar results and increase the number of States that have zero 
tolerance laws from the current 24 States and the District of Columbia, 
to all of the States.
  This zero tolerance amendment will save lives, and the life saved may 
be yours. It will save lives in the single most vulnerable group of 
drivers, namely teenagers. For the simple fact is that alcohol, when 
mixed with teenage driving habits, is a lethal combination.
  First, let us examine the driving record of teenagers. As the chart 
to my left shows, of the percentage of drivers in fatal crashes who are 
exceeding the speed limit or traveling too fast for road conditions, 
teenagers are far more likely to be involved. This happens because 
teenagers are more likely, compared to older drivers, to engage in 
risky driving practices. A teenager's lack of experience and over-
confidence can lead to accidents that often have fatal results, not 
only to teenagers, but also to their passengers or to pedestrians or to 
individuals in other automobiles, other innocent victims.
  Teenagers are also involved in far more crashes than older drivers. 
As the chart to my left shows, a much higher percentage of teenagers 
than any other group is involved in police-reported crashes per million 
miles traveled.
  Adding alcohol to this situation can make it a deadly combination for 
teenagers and for other drivers on the road. Quite simply, teenagers 
who drive while consuming alcohol are far more likely to speed, to be 
distracted by other passengers, to disregard road signs and conditions, 
and to drive recklessly.
  As a result, according to NHTSA, 40 percent of the traffic fatalities 
in the teenage group are alcohol related. Forty percent of the traffic 
fatalities involving drivers, ages 15 to 20, are alcohol related. The 
result is carnage on our Nation's highways. Twenty-eight percent of 17- 
to 19-year-old drivers who were killed in 1993 crashes had high blood 
alcohol concentrations.
  But our concern should not only be for the teenage drivers, but also 
for the innocent, law-abiding victims who are killed and maimed by 
teenage drunk drivers. In 1994, approximately 2,200 people were killed 
because of minors who were drinking and driving, and of that group, 
1,600 were young people themselves.
  Teenagers are generally inexperienced at both drinking and driving, 
so even small amounts of alcohol combined with driving can result in 
serious accidents and death. Approximately one-third of the 15- to 20-
year-old drinking drivers in fatal crashes had blood alcohol content 
levels of less than 0.09 percent.
  I would like to repeat that fact, as it underscores the importance of 
my amendment: one-third of all fatal crashes involving teenage drunk 
drivers involved a blood alcohol level below the DWI level used in most 
States, and even below a 0.08 or 0.09 DUI standard of some States. In 
fact, teenage drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05 to 0.10 percent 
are far more likely than sober teenage drivers to be killed in single-
vehicle crashes--18 times more likely for males, 54 times more likely 
for females.
  My amendment requires a ``zero tolerance'' policy, which is already 
the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia. I am advised that 
two other States have enacted legislation to provide for zero 
tolerance, but the legislation has not yet been signed into law, but it 
is expected to be within the course of the next week or so. This 
amendment recognizes that when teenagers drink, regardless of the 
amount, they have significantly increased the probability that their 
behavior will result in an accident, and a serious one at that. Perhaps 
fatal. My amendment recognizes that teenagers and alcohol--any amount 
of alcohol--is a dangerous, and often lethal, combination. We must be 
consistent, and condemn any level of drinking and driving by minors. To 
do anything less is to condone the illegal use of alcohol by minors.
  The record shows that zero tolerance saves lives. As I have stated, 
24 States have already enacted the zero-tolerance law which is called 
for in my amendment and it has proved to be very effective.
  In Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, which have 
adopted zero tolerance laws, lower blood alcohol limits for minors 
resulted in a 34 percent decline in nighttime fatal crashes among 
younger drivers. Various studies have shown that these zero-tolerance 
laws can reduce fatal accidents, and they will reduce fatal accidents. 
A 1992 Federal study in Maryland found that car accidents involving 
drivers under the age of 21 who had been drinking, declined eleven 
percent after the zero-tolerance law was adopted. Further, there was a 
50 percent drop in accidents in areas where the penalties were promoted 
with a publicity campaign.
  Whenever we lower the accident rate on our Nation's highways, we also 
directly lower costs to society. When someone is injured in a car 
accident, we all pay a price, either in the form of increased health 
insurance premiums, or more directly through Medicaid and other forms 
of State and Federal government assistance. This important point should 
not be ignored: At the very time that we are trying to lower the 
deficit, we should not leave a loophole in Federal law that allows 
teenage drunk drivers to cause accidents that increase Federal health 
and income-support costs.
  The abuse of alcohol continues to be one of the most pressing 
problems of our society, and the consequences can be felt throughout 
our Nation--at home, at work, and in public places. While our society 
has made great strides in recent years, we have barely begun to deal 
with the problem. And there is no better place to start than with our 
Nation's youth.
  Our Nation's young people are encouraged and tempted to consume 
alcohol by the movies they see, by the TV commercials, by the magazines 
they read, and by the huge flow of print advertisements for alcoholic 
beverages.
  But it is adults who must set the example for what is appropriate 
behavior. And the adults are foremost the parents of these young 
people. We have a responsibility to the Nation's youth to help prevent 
drunk driving by adopting this amendment. We should take this positive 
step--a step that involves clear and decisive action, and not just 
rhetoric--and help get teenage drunk drivers off the roads.
  When it comes to substance abuse in this Nation, alcohol is our 
biggest scourge. Almost 14 million Americans over 18 are alcoholics. 
Another 1.3 million suffer alcohol dependency. Overall, close to 8 
percent of adults have a problem with liquor, costing the economy an 
estimated $100 billion every year in lost productivity and in health 
care costs.
  So the very least we can do as a Nation that purports to care about 
the health, safety, and well-being of its people is to try to nip this 
alcohol plague in the bud by discouraging the early drinking that often 
results in later addiction or alcohol dependency.
  We have heard a lot of debate during consideration of this 
legislation about personal freedoms and States rights. But if we, who 
claim to be national [[Page S 8776]] leaders, decline to try to set 
even bare minimum standards and guidelines for behavior which is 
dangerous, destructive, and unacceptable for our young people, why have 
we chosen national public service as a vocation in the first place? At 
the very least, we should not abdicate our leadership role when it 
comes to our Nation's most precious resource, its young people. If we 
do not have the courage to take a stand on this most obvious of 
issues--drunk driving by minors--we will have surely failed, not only 
in our official capacity, but also in a larger moral sense as well.
  I commend President Clinton for speaking out on this matter.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter transmitted to me today signed 
by the President, and also other materials that are relevant to the 
subject about which I have been speaking, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, June 21, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Robert: Drinking and driving by young people is one of 
     the nation's most serious threats to public health and public 
     safety. I am deeply concerned about this ongoing tragedy that 
     kills thousands of young people every year. It's against the 
     law for young people to drink. It should be against the law 
     for young people to drink and drive.
       As you know, earlier this month, I called on Congress to 
     make Zero Tolerance the law of the land. I support your 
     amendment to the National Highway System Designation Act, 
     which would achieve this goal.
       A decade ago, we decided as a nation that the minimum 
     drinking age should be 21. In 1984, President Reagan signed 
     bipartisan legislation to achieve this goal, and today all 50 
     states have enacted such laws. Our efforts are paying off--
     drunk driving deaths among people under 21 have been cut in 
     half since 1984.
       But we must do more. Twenty-four states and the nation's 
     capital have enacted Zero Tolerance laws that consider a 
     driver under age 21 to be ``driving while impaired'' after 
     just one full drink of alcohol. These laws work--alcohol-
     related crashes involving teenage drivers are down as much as 
     10-20 percent in those states. If all states had such laws, 
     hundreds more lives could be saved and thousands of injuries 
     could be prevented.
       I commend your efforts today, and I urge the Senate to pass 
     your amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____

     From Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
     Re zero tolerance for youth fact sheet.

       Federal law (the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984) 
     requires every state to make purchase or public possession of 
     alcoholic beverages by those under age 21 illegal, or the 
     state loses a portion of its federal highway funds. As a 
     result, all states passed laws making 21 the legal drinking 
     age.
       The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
     credits increases in the legal drinking age with preventing 
     close to 1,000 traffic deaths a year. (Public Health Reports 
     Nov-Dec 1994, Hingson, Heeren and Winter)
       As of April 1994, 29 states and DC passed lower blood 
     alcohol concentration laws for youthful drivers. 26 states 
     and DC have zero tolerance (.00, .01 or .02) laws.
       Youths have a lower tolerance for alcohol than adults and 
     their driving is impaired with any consumption.
       Motor vehicle crash injuries are the leading single cause 
     of all injury-related youth fatalities, followed by homicide; 
     In 1993, 5,905 youths age 15-20 died in motor vehicle 
     crashes. 2,364 of those deaths were alcohol-related.
       The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that almost 
     one-third of high school seniors binge drink.
       A 1994 study published in the November-December issue of 
     Public Health Reports comparing 12 states with lower 
     tolerance laws for youth to neighboring states without such 
     laws showed that zero tolerance laws are likely to reduce 
     youth fatalities significantly whereas lower tolerance laws 
     (.04 or .06) do not.
       A comparison of drivers involved in single vehicle fatal 
     crashes revealed that each .02 percent increase in blood 
     alcohol concentration nearly doubled the risk of fatal crash 
     involvement for all drivers. (Public Health Reports)
       According to NHTSA seven percent of licensed drivers are 
     ages 15-20. But 15 percent of drivers in fatal crashes are 
     between the ages of 15 and 20, and 21 percent of deaths in 
     crashes involve a driver of that age.
       A study of the first four states to have reduced legal 
     blood alcohol concentration for youths, comparing them to 
     four neighboring states which did not reduce youth legal BAC 
     revealed a 34 percent decline in night fatal crashes among 
     adolescents in those states with reduced legal BAC for 
     youths.
       Teen drivers are inexperienced. They are more likely to 
     speed and take other risks on the road. Their inexperience 
     and risk taking combined with impairment from alcohol 
     consumption markedly increase their chances for crashes.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. BYRD. I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Byrd's 
amendment to the national highway system bill relating to zero 
tolerance for under-age drivers.
  In 1984, I sponsored legislation that required States to enact laws 
making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase and 
publicly possess alcoholic beverages.
  I sponsored this legislation for one simple reason--our children were 
dying on our highways. And they were dying for the sake of a drink.
  Studies have shown that alcohol--even at very low levels--can cause 
young people to lose their judgment and behave without regard to the 
risks of driving at about twice the rate of drivers 21 or older.
  Mr. President, since the national 21 drinking age was enacted 
nationally, 9 thousand lives have been saved.
  And since 1975, when States first started enacting laws like this one 
locally, as estimated 10,000 lives and over $30 billion in economic 
costs have been saved.
  In 1993 alone, 2,364 youths--young people between 15 and 20 years 
old--died in alcohol-related crashes.
  And 23 percent of the 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were involved in 
these fatal crashes had some alcohol in their blood.
  So how do we keep our children from killing themselves when studies 
show that over 95 percent of American adolescents will have 
experimented with alcohol by the time they are seniors in high school?
  I believe Senator Byrd's amendment can help us do just that.
  Mr. President, there is mounting evidence which demonstrates that 
blood alcohol concentration levels as low as .015 can impair a person's 
ability to make the kind of judgments needed to operate a motor vehicle 
safely.
  And as I indicated before, the evidence is clear: young drinking 
drivers behave differently from older drinking drivers. For young 
people, more than adults, alcohol--even at very low levels--may cause 
them to lose judgment and behave without regard to the inherent risks 
of driving at about twice the rate of drivers 21 years or older.
  But despite the evidence, many States still use the same standards to 
determine if a young person is under the influence as they apply to 
older drivers.
  That does not make sense.
  At present 24 States and the District of Columbia have laws which 
allow zero tolerance for those under 21 who are caught drinking and 
driving.
  These laws consider young drivers in violation the law if they are 
caught with a .02 BAC level or more. A .02 or .01 BAC level is 
considered zero tolerance given the present level of technology of 
alcohol breath-testing devices.
  There are an additional eight States that have laws which set zero 
tolerance for drivers less than 18--or have laws that set lower 
allowable BAC levels for underage drivers.
  A Maryland study showed a 21-percent reduction in alcohol-related 
traffic accidents involving youth under the age of 21 after it enacted 
its .02 BAC law for younger drivers. When Maryland combined the .02 BAC 
law with a public information campaign, alcohol-related traffic 
accidents involving youth under the age of 21 dropped by 50 percent.
  These are impressive statistics. They demonstrate the kind of impact 
that Senator Byrd's amendment will have on the safety of the American 
public, particularly young Americans.
  The human tragedy of teenage drunk driving is measured in the 
funerals of too many bright and promising young people who made the 
fatal decision to drink and drive--and too many funerals of law-abiding 
citizens who were victimized by drunk drivers. [[Page S 8777]] 
  The national 21 minimum drinking age was a step in the right 
direction. We need to keep going. The Byrd amendment does that. It will 
save lives--young lives.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Montana 
and I have conferred as managers. We see no one who wishes to speak at 
this time on the Byrd amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that the time remaining on the Byrd amendment be 20 minutes, and that 
it be equally divided between the Senator from West Virginia and the 
managers of the bill.
  Then the Senate would now proceed to the amendment of the Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1445

(Purpose: To require the transfer of certain Federal highway funds to a 
    State highway safety program if a State fails to prohibit open 
    containers of alcoholic beverages and consumption of alcoholic 
           beverages in the passenger area of motor vehicles)

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my understanding of the legislative 
circumstances are that we have set aside the amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia, in which case I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1445.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . OPEN CONTAINER LAWS.

       (a) Establishment.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 161. Open container requirements

       ``(a) Penalty.--
       ``(1) General rule.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 1998.--If, at any time in fiscal year 
     1998, a State does not have in effect a law described in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall transfer 1.5 percent of 
     the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 1999 under 
     each of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402.
       ``(B) Fiscal years thereafter.--If, at any time in a fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 1998, a State does not 
     have in effect a law described in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall transfer 3 percent of the funds apportioned 
     to the State for the succeeding fiscal year under each of 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402.
       ``(b) Open Container Laws.--For the purposes of this 
     section, each State shall have in effect a law that prohibits 
     the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, or 
     the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger 
     area of any motor vehicle (including possession or 
     consumption by the driver of the vehicle) located on a public 
     highway, or the right-of-way of a public highway, in the 
     State. If a State has in effect a law that makes the 
     possession of any open alcoholic beverage container unlawful 
     in the passenger area by the driver (but not by a passenger) 
     of a motor vehicle designed to transport more than 10 
     passengers (including the driver) while being used to provide 
     charter transportation of passengers, the State shall be 
     deemed in compliance with subsection (a) with respect to the 
     motor vehicle for each fiscal year during which the law is in 
     effect.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project carried out under section 402 with funds transferred 
     under subsection (a) to the apportionment of a State under 
     section 402 shall be 100 percent.
       ``(d) Transfer of Obligation Authority.--If the Secretary 
     transfers under subsection (a) any funds to the apportionment 
     of a State under section 402 for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate an amount of obligation authority distributed 
     for the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction programs for carrying out only 
     projects under section 402 that is determined by 
     multiplying--
       ``(1) the amount of funds transferred under subsection (a) 
     to the apportionment of the State under section 402 for the 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the ratio of the amount of obligation authority 
     distributed for the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs to the 
     total of the sums apportioned to the State for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction (excluding sums not 
     subject to any obligation limitation) for the fiscal year.
       ``(e) Limitation on Applicability of Highway Safety 
     Obligations.--Notwithstanding any other law, no limitation on 
     the total of obligations for highway safety programs carried 
     out by the Secretary under section 402 shall apply to funds 
     transferred under subsection (a) to the apportionment of a 
     State under section 402.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Alcoholic beverage.--The term `alcoholic beverage' 
     has the meaning provided in section 158(c).
       ``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' has the 
     meaning provided in section 154(b).
       ``(3) Open alcoholic beverage container.--The term `open 
     alcoholic beverage container' has the meaning provided in 
     section 410.
       ``(4) Passenger area.--The term `passenger area' shall have 
     the meaning provided by the Secretary by regulation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``161. Open container requirements.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I listened with interest to my 
colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and I have 
added my name as a cosponsor to his amendment. I think it is good 
legislation. I think it will save lives. I am pleased to support him 
and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will vote for the 
legislation he has offered.
  I offer an amendment dealing with the same subject, the subject of 
drinking and driving. My amendment deals with the subject of open 
containers of alcohol in vehicles.
  Sunday was Father's Day in our country, a day that many remembered 
fondly with our families. Sunday was also a day in which eight people 
were killed on a California highway, two of them toddlers, four of them 
children, two adults: a 2-month-old named Antonia, a 2-year-old named 
Carina, a 3-year-old named Suleima, a 9-year-old named Jairo.
  These children were in a car last Sunday on a California highway. I 
read about it Monday morning. A drunk driver came down the highway and 
cut into the back of the car that these children were in at a high rate 
of speed, apparently, in a reckless manner, according to the newspaper 
accounts. The car began to flip and became a fireball. These six 
children died on Father's Day in that accident.
  The person that pulled in apparently was driving a pickup truck, 
according to the newspaper accounts, and was drunk. The driver of the 
truck had been convicted previously of drunk driving and was driving 
drunk on Father's Day without a license, and kills six children and two 
adults.
  I point this out only because I read about it Monday morning and 
understood, again, the horror of it. It happens every day, all day, all 
across this country. Every 30 minutes someone else gets a telephone 
call or a knock on the door saying, ``Your loved one has been killed 
because someone in this country was driving drunk.''
  I received a telephone call at 10:30 in the evening telling me that 
my mother had been killed in a drunk driving accident by a fellow who 
was fleeing from the police. Never in my life will I forget that 
telephone call and how I felt about it. I had received calls before. My 
sister's son, a pizza delivery boy, was also killed. That call came 
late at night. My cousin's son was killed a couple of weeks ago, the 
weekend of his high school graduation. He did not cross the stage 
because he was in a car that was hit by a train, driven, apparently, by 
someone who also had been drinking.
  Everyone understands the pain and the agony of losing friends, 
acquaintances, and loved ones in accidents on America's roads. And all 
too often we understand the pain of losing someone in an accident that 
is caused by someone, also, who drank.
  This is not some mysterious disease for which we do not understand 
the cure. We understand what causes these deaths and we understand how 
to stop it. People who drink and drive commit murder in this country. 
We ought not just blithely ignore it any longer.
  I do not think my colleagues, know that according to the Department 
of Transportation, there are six States in America where you can get 
behind the wheel of your car, use your right hand to put the key in the 
ignition, and close your left hand over the bottleneck of a bottle of 
whiskey and drive [[Page S 8778]] on down the road and drink your 
whiskey and be perfectly legal. It is not a problem, because it is not 
against the law to be able to drink and drive in those States. In over 
half the States in this country, if the driver cannot drink, the rest 
of the folks in the car can have a party and pass the bottle around as 
they drive down the street.
  My own view about drinking and driving in this country is that we 
ought to decide to separate the act of drinking from the act of 
driving.
  I had hoped one day that this Senate will decide to develop an 
attitude about drinking and driving like the Europeans have. In most 
European countries, if you go out and see others out at a bar 
someplace, or a pub, you can be sure that one person out of those five 
or six people that are together is not drinking.
  Why? Because they understand the penalties are far too severe to risk 
getting picked up for drunk driving. You just do not dare chance it. 
Most of those countries will not tolerate it. You do not even want to 
think about the penalty for drunk driving. In our country, all too 
often, it is a slap on the wrist, and then back to the road.
  I was in a car with my late daughter that was hit by a driver so 
drunk he could not drive after he hit us. He totaled our car. 
Fortunately, neither of us were hurt. After hitting our car he kept 
driving and drove about half a block more into a streetlight, where his 
car stopped. He was too drunk to get out of the car.
  Of course, he was not hurt because most often in those accidents it 
is the other people who are killed. The people who are drunk, by and 
large, do not get hurt very often.
  But the point is, we all understand what is happening on our roads. 
It is carnage on America's roads.
  Now, I do not want to go on a vacation and I do not want the Senator 
from West Virginia or the Senator from Montana to go on vacation, and 
drive from one State line to another State and discover that on the 
public roads in this next State that you are driving into, built in 
part with Federal funds, we have folks driving toward us who are able 
to drink in the car. Or we have folks driving toward us with four or 
five other people in the car, having a party, and that State finds that 
it is fine.
  It is not fine with me. When we spend the billions of dollars to 
invest in our road system in this country, we ought to decide it is a 
national purpose to tell the people in this country that it does not 
matter which line you have crossed, what State you are moving through, 
in this country we made a decision, you shall not have open containers 
of alcohol in your car, in your vehicle. It is a national decision. 
This is a national problem.
  My amendment, Madam President, is fairly simple. My amendment would 
require the States in this country to enact open container laws that 
prohibit open containers in vehicles.
  If a State does not comply within 2 years, then 1.5 percent of its 
Federal highway construction funds would be transferred to the State's 
allocation amount for highway safety programs. It does not take the 
money away from the State. It simply does what we have done previously 
in the seatbelt laws and says if you do not conform, then 1.5 percent 
moves from the construction program over to the highway safety program.
  If the State does not comply after September 30, 1998, then 3 percent 
of the money would be transferred to the safety program.
  This amendment utilizes the identical incentives to encourage States 
to prohibit open containers of alcohol as it does on the seatbelt 
issue.
  I know we will likely hear from some who come to this Chamber later 
100 reasons why this should not be done. We have always heard reasons 
why we should not interfere.
  This country must soon wake up and decide, as other countries already 
have in many parts of the world, to tell people who drive drunk that 
they are murdering people on our highways and we will no longer permit 
it. We think there should be certain sanctions, tough sanctions, tough 
punishment for people who drive drunk. I am suggesting that no State 
should be able to tell the citizens in its State or elsewhere that it 
is fine, when you enter our State line, to drink and drive. Or it is 
fine to have alcohol in the car and have other people drinking. At 
least, it is not fine with me.
  We are heading, now, toward the Fourth of July weekend. It is one of 
the deadliest alcohol-related traffic holidays in our Nation. That is 
the case every single year. Madam President, 55 percent of the total 
traffic fatalities on July 4, 1993, the last year for which we have 
statistics, were alcohol related.
  From 1982 to 1993--I came to the Congress in 1981; the person in the 
chair from Maine I suspect came in 1980 or 1982, somewhere in that 
period, to the U.S. House of Representatives--since that time, roughly 
266,000 Americans have been killed in alcohol-related traffic 
accidents; 266,000 Americans in an 11-year period. It ought not 
continue. We ought to stop it and we ought to decide to have the 
courage as a Congress to tell everybody in this country do not even 
think about driving if you are drinking. Alcohol and driving do not mix 
and will not be tolerated anywhere in this country--anywhere in this 
country.
  If the Congress would this evening enact the legislation I am 
proposing, we would, I think, send a signal in this country that we 
intend to be tough with respect to this issue. Madam President, 26 
States do not have open container laws at the present time, according 
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I mentioned that 
six States do not have laws prohibiting drinking and driving at the 
same time by drivers. I think there is a way for us to speak to that, 
and I hope we will.
  There are as many reasons as there are people around here to find 
them that we should not do this. There are 266,000 reasons, 266,000 
dead Americans in the last 11 years, whose memory we probably ought to 
honor today by passing this legislation. I cannot claim how many 
Americans we will save, how many lives we will save if we do the right 
thing in our country and tell people you cannot drink and drive; you 
cannot have open containers in your vehicle. But I know in my heart we 
are talking about tens of thousands of people, year after year, who 
will not lose their lives because someone was driving drunk.
  There are at least six children in a morgue tonight who died on 
Father's Day who should not have died: Carina, Antonia, Suleima, 
Fidela, Jairo, and Omar. I name only six because it would take too long 
to name the number of people who died from alcohol-related accidents 
since Sunday, because it is every half hour, every hour of every day 
someone is killed because of a drunk driver. We can stop it if we will 
decide to exhibit the courage to stand up on a national basis and say 
this is our national message: Do not drink and drive in this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
request the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time be 
taken from both sides equally during the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. [[Page S 
8779]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1446

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to make a couple of 
comments on the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  I first want to commend the Senator from West Virginia. This is a 
very good amendment. It goes to the heart of the problem of teenage 
drinking. I commend him for offering this amendment. This amendment 
will help us reduce some of the slaughter on our Nation's highways, 
particularly the tragic deaths of teenagers.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I am 
very pleased to have him as a cosponsor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I might say to the Senator, we are 
very proud in Montana, particularly in Yellowstone County, of a program 
called It's Your Choice. It is sponsored by the Yellowstone County 
commissioners who provide the funding. A fellow named Dick Taylor, who 
is the head of the former ambulance service in Yellowstone County, saw 
so many deaths he finally said, ``I need to do something about all 
this, particularly the deaths of teenagers.'' This program, It's Your 
Choice simulates crashes, including the police and ambulances coming to 
the scene of an accident. It is all realistically reenacted in high 
schools in Billings, MT.
  As a consequence, the number of teenage deaths attributable to 
alcohol in traffic accidents has been reduced. Also the State of 
Montana has recently passed legislation providing the blood alcohol 
content cannot be more than .02 percent for teenagers.
  The Senator from West Virginia is leading the effort for a national 
.02 alcohol content for youthful drivers, and I commend the Senator for 
his efforts.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator, and I also thank the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Montana in commending my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so I might be able to call up 
another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is set aside.


                           Amendment No. 1447

    (Purpose: To strike the section repealing restrictions on toll 
                              facilities)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself and Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 1447.

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

       Beginning on page 28, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 29, line 14.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
myself, as well as Senator McConnell. As I am sure my colleagues know, 
many of us are very pleased with the progress on this bill. It is a 
vital step in developing a national transportation strategy. It makes 
important gains in reducing some of the regulatory burden in our 
States, something we are all interested in doing.
  But there is one item here in this bill which concerns me regarding 
tolls. The amendment I am offering today is very simple. It seeks to 
maintain current law which prohibits States from converting toll-free 
interstate highways into toll roads.
  Let me explain why this is needed. Current law says States cannot put 
tolls on an interstate highway unless it was built without using 
Federal funds. Current law also allows States a little more flexibility 
on noninterstate highways. They can impose tolls on those roads, but 
only if it is done in conjunction with major repair or reconstruction.
  The theory is you should get something for your money. Unfortunately, 
the language in the bill removes both of these restrictions. The bill 
would allow States to place tolls on any Federal highway, including the 
interstate highway system, regardless of whether or not the road is 
undergoing repair work.
  I think that is a mistake. My amendment strikes this language from 
the bill. States planning major repairs to interstate highways can 
still place a toll on that road and use the revenue to pay for the 
repairs. That makes sense. Once a State pays for the repairs using 
tolls, further toll revenues can be used for other transportation 
purposes.
  My amendment would prevent States from using toll roads as cash cows; 
that is, putting tolls on the road just to generate revenue. Drivers 
already pay a pretty steep gasoline tax in most States, and combined 
with the Federal-State portion it gets pretty high. I do not think we 
need yet another tax on top of that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters supporting the amendment from 
the American Trucking Association, the Highway Users Federation, and 
the National Association of Truck Stop Operators be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     urges you to support the effort by Senators Baucus and 
     McConnell to strike section 117 of the National Highway 
     System Bill (S. 440). Section 117 would allow states to 
     impose tolls on interstate highways.
       Section 117 is an unnecessary tax increase on the trucking 
     industry and the motoring public. Highway users already pay 
     millions of dollars in taxes annually into the Highway Trust 
     Fund for the construction and repair of interstate highways. 
     Consequently, passage of Section 117 would put the Senate on 
     record as supporting the ``double taxation'' of highway 
     users. Passage of this additional highway tax will place an 
     economic burden on both the transportation and tourism 
     industries. We encourage you to vote to strike Section 117.
       We also encourage you to vote for the amendment likely to 
     be offered by Senator Exon that would establish standards for 
     truck trailer lengths under the NAFTA. We support the 
     Senator's proposal to limit single trailer lengths to fifty 
     three feet. It is imperative that U.S. highway safety 
     standards are not compromised during negotiations to 
     establish common truck safety standards under the NAFTA. 
     Senator Exon's proposal is a critically important step in 
     ensuring that we preserve the highest highway safety 
     standards possible in North America.
           Sincerely,
                                         William W. Hamilton, Jr.,
     Governmental Affairs Department.
                                                                    ____

                                     Highway Users Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The Majority Leader moved to 
     consideration of S. 440, the ``National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995,'' this afternoon. With fewer than 50 
     congressional working days remaining before the September 30 
     NHS funding deadline, prompt action on this measure is 
     urgently needed. We want to inform you of our views on two 
     specific amendments that may be offered during floor 
     consideration of S. 440.
       Tolls--we understand Senators Baucus and McConnell will 
     offer an amendment to strike the section of S. 440 that would 
     allow tolls to be placed on existing, free Interstate 
     highways, We strongly support the Baucus/McConnell amendment. 
     The prohibition against tolls on Interstate highways has 
     existed for 40 years. Nearly 100% of the Interstate System is 
     completed and open to traffic, paid for by highway users. To 
     allow tolls now on existing, free Interstates is akin to 
     charging a homeowner rent. Highway users have paid for 
     construction of the Interstates and continue to pay for 
     Interstate maintenance through Federal and state user fees. 
     In addition, tolls on Interstate highways would seriously 
     restrict the flow of interstate commerce and the mobility 
     that American families and businesses depend on and have come 
     to expect.
       Amtrak--we understand Senator Roth may offer an amendment 
     to make Amtrak routes eligible to receive Federal highway 
     funds. We would strongly oppose the Roth amendment. Amtrak 
     carries just three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) of all 
     intercity passenger miles travelled and no freight. By 
     contrast highways carry over 80% of intercity passenger miles 
     and almost 80% of the dollar volume of all freight moved in 
     the U.S. With a $290 billion backlog of road and bridge [[Page S 
     8780]] needs, it makes no sense to subsidize passenger rail 
     service with our limited highway dollars.
       The NHS is vital to America's economic and defense needs. 
     We hope the bill approved by the Senate will garner the 
     broad, bipartisan support that this important program 
     deserves.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas J. Donohue,
       President & CEO, American Trucking Associations, Inc.
     William D. Fay,
       President, Highway Users Federation.
                                                                    ____

                                                  NATSO, Inc.,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 20, 1995.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: On behalf of NATSO, Inc., the 
     professional and legislative representative of America's 
     travel plaza and truckstop industry, I am writing to express 
     grave concerns about a provision in S. 440 that would allow 
     states to establish tolls on the Interstate highway system. I 
     understand that you and Senator McConnell are offering an 
     amendment to delete this provision, and the eight NATSO 
     member locations in Montana as well as the more than 1,070 
     member locations nationwide strongly support your efforts.
       NATSO opposes this provision for several reasons. First, 
     highway users have already paid for the Interstate system. 
     Every time fuel is purchased, motorists pay a tax into the 
     highway trust fund that goes to support the Interstate 
     system. Allowing the states the opportunity to collect tolls 
     from Interstate travelers is nothing more than a new tax on 
     the highway user. The Interstate traveler should not be 
     forced to pay again for something already purchased.
       Also, this provision will undoubtedly shift traffic from 
     Interstate highways, proven to be the safest and most 
     efficient, to secondary roads that have not been designed to 
     handle large volumes of traffic. This proposal will increase 
     congestion and traffic accidents. It will also devastate the 
     truckstops, travel plazas and thousands of other roadside 
     businesses that provide goods and services to the Interstate 
     traveler.
       Finally, if more transportation funds are needed, we 
     believe that Congress should spend down the $19.6 billion 
     languishing in the highway trust fund. Instead of being used 
     for its intended purpose, the highway trust fund is currently 
     held hostage to make the federal deficit appear smaller. 
     Asking the highway user to pay more--at a time when tax money 
     already collected is not being spent--is wrong.
       Again, NATSO strongly supports your amendment to delete 
     this toll provision from S. 440. We will gladly provide 
     assistance to you in your efforts to pass this amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  W. Dewey Clower,
                                                        President.

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the managers are going to accept this. I 
see the presence of the cosponsor of the amendment on the floor. 
Following his remarks, I will then speak to the pending amendment.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Virginia, and 
I want to commend the Senator from Montana for the amendment he has 
offered of which I am the principal cosponsor.
  I think he has adequately described the rationale for the amendment. 
Essentially, it is that we do not want the States to turn the 
interstate system into a way to raise revenue for themselves. That is 
not the basis upon which the Interstate Highway System was constructed.
  This amendment would guarantee that could not happen. I am proud to 
be the principal cosponsor of this amendment.
  Madam President, this amendment would strike section 117 of this 
bill. The provision I would like to remove is one that repeals the 
prohibition against States imposing tolls in Federal-aid highways, 
including the Interstate System.
  To put it more simply, my amendment continues the ban on State 
tolling of federally built highways. Or to say it even more plainly, if 
you gave at the office, you should not have to give again on the road.
  The Interstate System had helped to open up this vast country, 
removing all limitations on mobility. However, if section 117 is not 
removed from the bill, it could potentially turn our Interstate System 
into a heavily milked cash cow, where States squeeze additional dollars 
out of road that have already been paid for, through the excise tax on 
gasoline.
  From sea to shinning sea, we could find our Federal highways 
transformed into elongated parking lots, bisected at regular intervals 
by toll plazas.
  For the past 39 years, highway users have contributed to the highway 
trust fund, perhaps begrudgingly, but with the knowledge that these 
funds would be used for the construction and upkeep of the Nation's 
highway infrastructure. This national contract with highway users was 
establish in 1956, with the Federal-Aid Highway Act. As we all know, 90 
percent of trust fund revenues comes from the ever-increasing excise 
tax on gasoline. But it is fed by other revenue sources as well, 
including a sales tax on tires, trucks, and buses, as well as taxes on 
truck usage.
  In short, Madam President, if it moves on a highway, we have already 
taxed it--and we've taxed the gasoline it runs on. America's drivers 
are not exactly suffering from a dearth of taxes and user fees.
  Since 1956, when the highway trust fund was first established, 
American motorists have contributed $278 billion in net revenue to the 
fund. In return, highway users have been afforded free access to the 
Interstate System, unencumbered by a gauntlet of toll plazas. Congress 
should honor the contract it made with motorists--and eliminate the 
loophole contained in section 117.
  My amendment will ensure that our Interstate System remains free from 
the double taxation of tolls, which would disproportionately affect 
poorer Americans.
  Aside from my strong opposition to the double taxation of highway 
users, I also believe this toll provision is bad economic policy. It 
could potentially ruin hundreds of small businesses that cater to 
highways users. Should States decide to exact their pound of flesh at 
every highway exit, communities and business will be severely harmed as 
they are cut off from their customers.
  As someone who has personally traveled thousands of miles on Kentucky 
roads, I am all too familiar with the impact of highway tolls. In 
Kentucky, economic development adjacent to highways and parkways did 
not occur until these roads became toll-free. Only then did businesses 
blossom to meet the needs of tired, hungry, and road-weary motorists.
  Not only would many small businesses be crippled, but motorists and 
truckers would no longer benefit from highly competitive roadside 
services. Instead, users would essentially be forced to accept the 
overpriced gasoline and food concerns which would be given virtual 
monopoly rights at tolling areas.
  This provision will of course add to the cost of trucking, travel, 
and commerce--all of which would be reflected in bottom-line prices at 
the grocery store and elsewhere.
  To suggest that tolls are paid only by highway users is a gross 
economic oversimplification. Toll roads add to the cost of any goods 
shipped cross-country. These same costs will hit the tourist industry 
of every State hard, as families are forced to stay closer to home or 
forego travel altogether.
  I know that, in Kentucky, tourism would be substantially reduced by 
State tolling of Federal highways, for our State is a crossroads for 
interstate travel.
  Ever since the 1950's, when the United States embarked on its mission 
of establishing the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, 
these roads were meant to be toll-free. If toll booths were suddenly 
erected on Federal highways, traffic would snarl up, thereby adding to 
the cost and travel time. Anybody who has traveled a toll road can tell 
you that exists are not always located at every crossroad.
  In fact, on many toll roads, it is not uncommon for exits to be 
separated by 20 miles or more. If tolls are permitted on Federal 
highways, the communities and businesses that have developed around 
highway access points could be cut off. The network of roads, exits, 
and intersections are a vital part of the national highway contract. It 
is unacceptable--and potentially disastrous, to change the terms of our 
Federal agreement.
  Finally, tolls could result in an increase in air pollution. It is 
widely accepted that vehicles operate more efficiently at steady 
speeds. Long lines and stop-and-go traffic caused by toll plazas will 
needlessly pump greater amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.

[[Page S 8781]]

  We are told that proponents of toll roads are developing new, high-
technology methods of collecting tolls--without the safety, congestion, 
and pollution problems caused by toll roads. I do not know whether such 
an idea should be met with admiration or alarm. The notion that the 
Government could stick huge barcodes on every vehicle, which then would 
be read by high-speed laser scanners at checkpoints, does not exactly 
elicit cheers of enthusiasm for the advances of modern technology.
  Frankly, whether a toll is taken by a live human being or a high-
technology scanner is a bit like making a distinction between holding 
up a bank in person or embezzling funds via computer. In either case, 
the loss of funds is felt just as acutely.
  Madam President, I am not alone in this view. This proposal is also 
strongly opposed by motorists. In fact, a 1994 poll taken by Triple-A 
found that fully two-thirds of its members opposed this toll idea. I 
have letters from both the Louisville and Lexington chapters of Triple-
A opposing this measure.
  Madam President, I appreciate the arguments of toll proponents that 
there is a real need to insure funding for our infrastructure needs. I 
do not think there is a Member in the Senate who does not believe our 
transportation infrastructure is of the utmost importance to national 
commerce and competitiveness.
  However, this toll provision is an underhanded money grab that breaks 
the contract with motorists established through the Intrastate System. 
This single provision will cripple our ability to transport goods in a 
timely and cost-effective fashion.
  There are other ways to fund infrastructure development that will not 
require taxing motorists again for something they have already paid 
for. Congress needs to provide for the full funding of ISTEA and put an 
end to the gas tax diversion. The $9 billion in gas tax revenue that 
has been diverted elsewhere in the budget would go a long way toward 
improving the condition of our roads, bridges, and tunnels.
  America has paid for these roads. Let Americans use them--without 
added, hidden costs. Let us strike section 117 out of the bill, and 
protect motorists from new and ingenious ways of extracting more 
revenue from our Federal Highway System.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters from 
various groups in support of the amendment that Senator Baucus and 
myself have offered be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              American Automobile Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of AAA's 37 million 
     members, I urge you to introduce an amendment to S. 440, The 
     National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, that would 
     repeal the provisions allowing tolling of existing highways.
       ``The American Automobile Association is against toll roads 
     as a general principle . . . believing all highway facilities 
     should be toll-free. AAA particularly objects to the 
     imposition of tolls on any existing toll-free highway . . . 
     .'' (AAA Policies, April 1995-96)
       Our opposition to tolls is longstanding:
       We must have roads suitable and adequate for the movement 
     of modern motor traffic with safety. There must be multiple-
     lane highways with opposing traffic streams divided. They 
     must be free and not toll roads. . . . (AAA ``Bill of 
     Rights,'' 1936).
       The American Automobile Association reiterates its 
     opposition to transcontinental toll superhighways; also to 
     privately-owned toll roads . . . . (November, 1938).
       The American Automobile Association reiterates its 
     opposition to toll highways. (November, 1939).
       The American Automobile Association vigorously opposes the 
     levying of tolls on existing free highways. (November, 1940).
       The Association believes that the National System of 
     Interstate Highways should be entirely free of tolls . . . . 
     (AAA Policies 1949, 1950, reprinted January, 1951).
       Thank you for considering AAA's request. Say Yes to Just 
     NHS.
           Sincerely,

                                               Richard Hebert,

                                            Acting Vice President,
     Public and Government Relations.
                                                                    ____



                                      AAA Blue Grass/Kentucky,

                                     Lexington, KY, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of the 118,000 AAA 
     members we serve in central and eastern Kentucky, AAA Blue 
     Grass/Kentucky supports S. 440 which would establish a 
     National Highway System. However, we strongly object to any 
     toll provision in the bill.
       We oppose a toll provision for several reasons:
       Excessive cost.--Historically, toll-free roads have cost 
     the motorist about one cent per mile; new toll roads will 
     cost about 10 cents per mile. Admittedly, all new road 
     construction is going to be more expensive, but toll roads 
     will probably cost 3 to 4 times as much as toll-free roads 
     because of bond interest charges and toll collection costs.
       Double taxation.--If gas taxes are used to construct new 
     toll roads, motorists will pay twice--once at the pump, and 
     once at the toll booth.
       Breach of Trust.--Highway users have paid literally 
     hundreds of billions of dollars to construct the nation's 
     highway system; they should not now be charged a toll to use 
     it.
       Collection Inefficiency.--Currently 10-20% of toll revenues 
     are needed for the collection process while only one percent 
     of motor fuel taxes are devoted for that purpose.
       Inconvenient Access.--Toll roads often provide few 
     entrances and exits in order to minimize the number and 
     therefore the costs of toll personnel. Users can't get off 
     the road at convenient places and people in small communities 
     cannot use toll roads built right next to them.
       Motorist Irritation and Delay.--Congestion at toll plazas 
     often causes long lines of cars, much to the consternation of 
     the motoring public.
       Closed System Economics.--Toll road users are locked into 
     higher-price gas stations, food establishments and other 
     services.
       Toll facilities are self-perpetuating.--Agreements to make 
     facilities toll-free after debt service is paid seldom are 
     implemented. For instance, there are still 4,700 miles of 
     toll roads, bridges and tunnels on the interstate system, 
     with little likelihood that many of these facilities will 
     become toll-free.
       Neglect of the toll-free system.--Inevitably, construction 
     of toll roads will lead to toll-free roads not being built in 
     the same transportation corridors. Maintenance of free roads 
     parallel to toll roads may also suffer.
       Undermining the Federal Highway Trust Fund.--Increased 
     tolls would weaken pressure on Congress and the 
     administration to spend the money in the Highway Trust Fund.
       We appreciate your consideration of our views.
           Regards,
                                                      Kathy Gross,
     Manager, Marketing.
                                                                    ____

                                                 AAA Kentucky,

                                                    June 15, 1995.
     Hon. A.M. ``Mitch'' McConnell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: AAA Kentucky, serving over 300,000 
     members in our state, strongly supports an amendment removing 
     the toll provision in S. 440, ``The National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995''. Our opposition to allowing tolls 
     on federally financed highways is rooted in four basic 
     beliefs:
       The motorists we serve do not want tolls;
       Tolls are economically regressive;
       Tolls hurt travel and tourism;
       Tolls on federally financed highways are an unfair form of 
     double taxation


                      motorists do not want tolls

       According to AAA's 1994 National Legislative Survey, two-
     thirds of AAA members oppose imposing tolls on existing 
     interstates/highways to fund highway maintenance or 
     improvements. Locally, we are tabulating our most recent 
     legislative state survey and the results are running sixty-
     eight percent against tolls as a method to increase revenues.


                   tolls are economically regressive

       According to the Congressional Budget Office, new toll 
     roads would impose per-car charges of 8 to 10 cents per mile 
     on travelers. This translates into an effective tax rate of 
     an additional $1.60 to $2.00 per gallon of gasoline used. In 
     addition, tolls are an inefficient form of taxation. For 
     instance 15 percent of toll revenue is needed just for tax 
     collection compared to only 1 percent of motor fuel taxes 
     being used for collection. These factors combined to 
     illustrate the point that tolls should be the last place we 
     look for additional revenue.


                           tolls hurt travel

       As a simple tenant of economics, the more expensive an 
     action becomes, the fewer people will take that action. Toll 
     roads illustrate this axiom by discouraging travel over the 
     tolled section of highways. For example, here in Kentucky the 
     Western Parkway was a toll highway until nine years ago, when 
     tolls were removed. In a conversation with a Kentucky State 
     Trooper, he said he felt that traffic has increased on the 
     road over 25 percent since the tolls were lifted. Similarly, 
     during peak travel times, congestion and delays at toll 
     booths also breed frustration and further discourage travel, 
     increase costs and harm the environment.


                  tolls are a form of double taxation

       The promise the Federal government makes to motorists every 
     time they pay the gas tax at the pump would be broken with 
     the introduction of tolls. Literally, America's motorists 
     have paid hundreds of billions [[Page S 8782]] of dollars to 
     construct and maintain the nation's highway system. To change 
     the rules now and ask them to pay again as they use the 
     system is clearly a form of double taxation.
       For these reasons, AAA Kentucky strongly supports the 
     removal of the toll provision from S. 440. It is vital to 
     pass the NHS Bill as the earliest opportunity. However, while 
     it contains such provisions, AAA finds it unacceptable.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Kentucky's, and the 
     nation's, motorists.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Roger Boyd.
     Director, Public Affairs.
                                                                    ____

                                                        NATSO,

                                                    June 20, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of NATSO, Inc., the 
     professional and legislative representative of America's 
     travel plaza and truckstop industry, I am writing to express 
     grave concerns about a provision in S. 440 that would allow 
     states to establish tolls on the Interstate highway system. I 
     understand that you and Senator Baucus are offering an 
     amendment to delete this provision, and the 32 NATSO member 
     locations in Kentucky as well as the more than 1,070 member 
     locations nationwide strongly support your efforts.
       NATSO opposes this provision for several reasons. First, 
     highway users have already paid for the Interstate system. 
     Every time fuel is purchased, motorists pay a tax into the 
     highway trust fund that goes to support the Interstate 
     system. Allowing the states the opportunity to collect tolls 
     from Interstate travelers is nothing more than a new tax on 
     the highway user. The Interstate traveler should not be 
     forced to pay again for something already purchased.
       Also, this provision will undoubtedly shift traffic from 
     Interstate highways, proven to be the safest and most 
     efficient, to secondary roads that have not been designed to 
     handle large volumes of traffic. This proposal will increase 
     congestion and traffic accidents. It will also devastate the 
     truckstops, travel plazas and thousands of other roadside 
     businesses that provide goods and services to the Interstate 
     traveler.
       Finally, if more transportation funds are needed, we 
     believe that Congress should spend down the $19.6 billion 
     languishing in the highway trust fund. Instead of being used 
     for its intended purpose, the highway trust fund is currently 
     held hostage to make the federal deficit appear smaller. 
     Asking the highway user to pay more--at a time when tax money 
     already collected is not being spent--is wrong.
       Again, NATSO strongly supports your amendment to delete 
     this toll provision from S. 440. We will gladly provide 
     assistance to you in your efforts to pass this amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  W. Dewey Clower,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                                    June 21, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     urges you to support the effort by Senators Baucus and 
     McConnell to strike section 117 of the National Highway 
     System Bill (S. 440). Section 117 would allow states to 
     impose tolls on interstate highways.
       Section 117 is an unnecessary tax increase on the trucking 
     industry and the motoring public. Highway users already pay 
     millions of dollars in taxes annually into the Highway Trust 
     Fund for the construction and repair of interstate highways. 
     Consequently, passage of Section 117 would put the Senate on 
     record as supporting the ``double taxation'' of highway 
     users. Passage of this additional highway tax will place an 
     economic burden on both the transportation and tourism 
     industries. We encourage you to vote to strike Section 117.
       We also encourage you to vote for the amendment likely to 
     be offered by Senator Exon that would establish standards for 
     truck trailer lengths under the NAFTA. We support the 
     Senator's proposal to limit single trailer lengths to fifty 
     three feet. It is imperative that U.S. highway safety 
     standards are not compromised during negotiations to 
     establish common truck safety standards under the NAFTA. 
     Senator Exon's proposal is a critically important step in 
     ensuring that we preserve the highest highway safety 
     standards possible in North America.
           Sincerely,
                                         William W. Hamilton, Jr.,
                                   Governmenal Affairs Department.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I am 
pleased that this amendment is going to be accepted.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, both sponsors of this amendment have been 
quite persuasive. There were concerns certainly on our side for a 
period of time. But that persuasiveness has carried the day, since we 
are prepared to accept this. It I think goes back to the original 
situation which ensures that the National Highway System provides for 
the free flow of commerce. That was the objective of both of the 
sponsors.
  I might also add that during the course of the discussions in the 
consideration of other amendments on this bill, I find the truckers 
have been very responsible in the area of supporting the continuation 
of the speed limit objective that I had and will continue to have, and 
also in objecting to a differential between cars and trucks. I likewise 
oppose any differential.
  So while criticism is often directed toward them, I think certainly 
in the consideration of this bill in the three areas, they come up in a 
very responsible manner.
  So if the distinguished Senator from Montana wishes, I believe the 
junior Senator from Montana wishes to be added as a cosponsor, the 
Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent on behalf both Senator 
Baucus and myself, that the junior Senator, Senator Burns be added as a 
cosponsor of this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Montana.
  The amendment (No. 1447) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of my 
comanager, there may be some amendments. We are still working on a list 
of amendments that we might clear at any time.
  Mr. President, 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my understanding is that time remaining on 
the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia is 20 minutes 
equally divided. What is the time remaining on the amendment offered by 
the Senator from North Dakota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 3 minutes 
and 30 seconds. The manager in opposition has 12 minutes and 15 
seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask that the time on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from West Virginia be yielded in its entirety, 
and that 10 minutes of that be transferred to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chair.
  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. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                           Amendment No. 1445

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, at 7:40 we begin a series of three votes, 
one of which will be on the amendment I offered. My amendment is one 
that, again, would establish a national standard to say that States 
shall enact statutes that call for the prohibition of open containers 
of alcohol in vehicles. My amendment is not likely to attract 
sufficient votes to pass, I am guessing, if history is a lesson here.
  Some will come to the Chamber and decide, ``Well, my State does not 
have the prohibition for open containers, so I don't want to provide 
any leadership in Washington.'' Others will say, ``I do not think 
Washington ought to be telling anybody anything, so I will vote against 
it.''
  So we have a circumstance where we have a bill described by the 
managers to have a national strategy on transportation. But I must say 
that any bill [[Page S 8783]] that describes itself as a bill of 
national strategy that fails to provide the leadership necessary to 
send a message to this country that drinking and driving do not mix is 
a bill that falls far short on national strategy. It is not much of a 
strategy, in my judgment.
  We now have in this country a requirement that you wear seatbelts. 
Apparently the message would be, if my amendment does not pass, ``Go 
ahead and get in the car, buckle up, and then go ahead and take a swill 
of bourbon.'' It is fine with some. They do not mind if you drink. Just 
make sure you have your seatbelt on if you drink. I guess it is a 
policy position that might be attractive to some, but not to those who 
think clearly.
  It seems to me that Senators should understand that in this country 
every year there are 1 million people injured from drunk driving 
accidents. Every 25 minutes or so another American is killed from a 
drunk driving accident. In 11 years, 1982 to 1993, for which we have 
statistics, 266,000 Americans were killed as a result of alcohol-
related accidents.
  As I said before, this is not some mysterious disease. We know what 
causes it and how to stop it. The Europeans know how to stop it 
largely. They tell people, ``Do not even think about drinking and 
driving. It is not funny. Do not even think about it. If you get caught 
drunk driving, you are in deep trouble.''
  There are parts of this country where, if you get caught drunk 
driving, you get a little slap on the wrist and people grin at you, 
``You must have been having a good time.''
  It is not a good time to turn a car into a weapon of murder. That is 
what happens in this country if we do not have the strength to develop 
a national standard to say to people, part of the responsible use of 
our highways in this country is to understand you cannot drink and 
people in your car cannot drink and you cannot have open containers of 
alcohol in your car. There is nobody here that can come to the floor 
and claim a national strategy for the national transportation system 
until we provide a national strategy to tell Americans that you cannot 
drink and drive, you cannot have open containers of alcohol in 
vehicles. Until that happens, no one can reasonably come to the floor 
of the Senate and say we have a responsible national strategy on 
transportation or a responsible national strategy with respect to 
highways.
  It is disgusting to me that in this country there are still six 
States where it is legal to drink and drive, and there are 26 States in 
which you can have an open container of alcohol in a vehicle. One way 
or another--one way or another--someday, somehow, we are going to fix 
that. And we are going to learn the lessons that others in the world 
have already learned, notably European countries, to tell Americans 
that part of driving responsibly is to understand you do not drink and 
drive in our country. That is what my amendment is intending to do.
  I suspect there will not be sufficient votes for my amendment because 
people will come here and decide that they are not interested in 
providing national leadership on this issue. And the result will be 
more Americans will die. And until one day when sufficient numbers will 
come to the floor of the Senate and the House and decide that the 
carnage really ought to stop and there is something we can do to stop 
it, then we will pass an amendment of this type.
  Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the Senator 
from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 8 minutes 35 seconds.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I rise 
because there is a confluence of amendments and ideas being put forward 
at this time that come together to me in a very meaningful way. All of 
us--all of us, I am sure--have known someone who lost a family member 
or who themselves were lost because someone was casual about booze and 
driving.
  Perhaps the thing I am most proud of--I am honored to be elected to 
the Senate; I am honored to have had that opportunity in my life--but 
the thing that I am most proud of is that I am the father of four 
wonderful children and two of the most beautiful grandchildren to ever 
walk the face of the Earth. I am so taken by them that my thoughts are 
often consumed by the view of the world in which we live and concerned 
about things that, again, concern all parents--fathers, mothers--that 
is, the violence in our society, the destruction of young lives 
needlessly, about the family that we know where a 14-year-old boy was 
riding in the passenger seat in a car in Florida. The 16-year-old boy 
was driving. He had open containers of beer in the car.
 They hit a telephone pole going 70 miles an hour. My friend's son was 
incinerated. We do not know whether he died before he was burned or 
whether it was after, but the thought, the notion, the vision of this 
child--a bright, beautiful young man--was so vivid that it seared the 
thinking of the community for years after. There have been memorials, 
there have been testimonials, but nothing--nothing--can ever remove the 
memory of that tragedy.

  But I am also considered the father of the 21-drinking-age bill, not 
quite like fatherhood in the real sense, but something in which I take 
a significant measure of pride as well. That law was written in 1984. 
President Reagan was in office. Elizabeth Dole was the Secretary of 
Transportation. They were Republicans, devoted Republicans. And yet, 
throughout that debate, they were very positive. I was invited to be at 
the signing in the Rose Garden when President Reagan signed the 21-
drinking-age bill.
  That bill was almost forced on us by the anguish and the grief of 
parents across the country, of young friends across the country, high 
school kids--SADD was their organization, MADD was the Mothers Against 
Drunk Driving, who came here brokenhearted at the loss of a child, 
typically to drunken driving.
  So we worked hard, and we got that bill through. The rewards come 
every year when we get reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, when they say that we are saving about a thousand kids 
a year from dying on the highways--a thousand kids.
  It does not sound like something fantastic in the abstract, because a 
thousand families that do not have to mourn do not know that they 
escaped the pain. They do not know that they did not lose a child 
because there is a law on the books that encouraged the appropriate 
kind of behavior.
  Here we are, some 10 years later, 10,000 young people saved from 
dying on the highways, and I feel very good about the effort that is 
being made throughout my State and many States in the country to reduce 
drunk driving, ever more harsh in the punishment of those who abuse the 
privilege and the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a car and 
forget about it only too quickly.
  I am a strong supporter of Senator Byrd's amendment, which was 
offered before this, to continue to make the public and the driver more 
aware of the fact that when they drive and they drink that there is a 
penalty to be paid, a penalty far less--far less--than the ultimate 
penalty of winding up a statistic or a phone call in the dark of night 
or a police officer at the door.
  So when we look at legislation, as we consider the national highway 
bill, and we try, as we develop this 160,000 miles more of supervised 
or constructive road development, that we focus on the safety issues.
  One of the things that is apparent to anyone who has ever seen people 
driving with a drink container, a glass, a bottle in their hands, or a 
can, bottoms up going along often at a fast rate of speed, it seems to 
have particular attraction for young men and often people in the prime 
of life. They just do not understand that it is not cool, that it is 
not macho, that it is not anything but disgusting, because if they make 
a miscalculation, the ball game is over.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I was listening to the Senator's arguments, as well as 
the arguments of the Senator from North Dakota. I think they were very 
eloquent about the problems we are facing with drinking while people 
drive.
  I guess a philosophical question I ask the Senator from New Jersey, 
because I think the Senator from New Jersey supports the theory that on 
the use of highway funds for transportation purposes that the States 
should have a [[Page S 8784]] maximum degree of flexibility--if they 
want to use highway funds, for instance, instead of building highways, 
they should have the right to use them for Amtrak and rail systems--how 
does that square with the argument I think the Senator is making now 
with regard to standards for when people drink within a State that the 
Federal Government knows better in that area, but the State knows 
better in the area of what type of transportation system is better 
within the State? We are going to tell you what to do when it comes to 
setting limitations on drinking, but we are not going to tell you what 
to do with how the money is spent for transportation purposes?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. To me, it is a fairly simple differentiation, and 
that is, in the case of decisions about where funds are spent on 
transportation, we have agreed in an amendment that we just dealt with 
that within the State legislature, the Governor and transportation 
officials within the State are qualified to make decisions about where 
they put their money--bridges, roadways, railroads, as I see it, mass 
transit. I think that is one kind of consideration.
  But I never believed--never believed--that when it came to the safety 
of our children, when it came to the helmet law, when it comes to 
drinking and driving, I do not believe that the Federal Government dare 
walk away from its responsibilities any more than we ought to walk away 
from equipping our service people with adequate resources if they are 
ever in combat, with equipping our people with the best education that 
they can get, equipping our young people with the best health 
conditions they can get with proper nutrition. I think that is a 
responsibility of Government. I think we ought to step forward on all 
issues affecting people on our roads to try to reduce the danger.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield further? Suppose the State says 
that is their responsibility, as well; let them make that decision?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In this case, obviously, I am not one who is going 
over the cliff on behalf of all States rights. I think States ought to 
have some flexibility in some areas, and in others, I think that there 
ought to be a national policy that is consistent.
  One of the problems that we had--and I know the Senator knew this 
very well because he was in Washington at that time--one of the 
problems we had when we tried to develop the 21 drinking age was that 
there were States, and some of these, not the most rural States, by the 
way, as one might often think, that refused to raise the drinking age 
because business was pretty good.
  By the way, one of the places was right here in the very Capital of 
our country. Washington, DC, was one of the last. They made a 
calculated decision as to whether or not they would raise the drinking 
age to 21 because Georgetown sells a lot of booze, and there is a lot 
of money spent there. So they were almost willing to trade bucks for 
lives, but the legislation forced them, because they would have lost a 
fair amount of their transportation money.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I might respond in part to the Senator from Louisiana by 
saying this is a question, in part, of whether there ought to be a 
national standard, not a question of whether the States can do it 
better. It is a question of do you think there should be a national 
standard on whether one should drink and drive.
  If one takes the position, I think some States ought to say you can 
drink a little and drive, and another State can say you can drink a lot 
and drive--because in our State there is a feeling you can drink a lot 
and drive--and in another State they say we do not think you ought to 
drink and drive at all, my own view of those three different choices 
States made is I think it ought not be a State choice. I think we ought 
to have a national standard on the fundamental question of is it 
appropriate on the national highways of the United States to drink and 
drive. The answer to me is no.
  Now, one can reach a different conclusion, and I will respect that. 
But I view this as the question of, should we have a national standard? 
The answer, clearly to me, is yes. Nowhere in this country should 
anyone ever believe, under any circumstance, that it is appropriate to 
get behind the wheel of a car, start the engine, and drive away 
drinking whiskey. That is totally, always, in every part of this 
country, inappropriate. I hope that we will have a national standard 
that will say that.
  Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield, I think the discussion is 
good.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. BREAUX. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, in discussing 
this, we have a national transportation highway system, and yet, some 
would argue, with a lot of eloquence, that the States should have a 
right to determine whether it is going to be a highway made of concrete 
or whether it is going to be a rail system that is used to transport 
people. The State ought to have a right to make that decision.
  I have a lot of sympathy that States should make that determination, 
even though it is a national highway transportation bill. But then when 
it comes to setting standards for when someone within a particular 
State should have a right to drink, well, some who make the argument 
that the States ought to have the flexibility on determining whether 
they are going to build highways or rail systems, then we are going to 
supersede you and we are going to determine in Washington what the 
proper standard is.
  In one case, we are saying the States have the right to make that 
determination, and in another area we say you are not smart enough to 
make the right determination, and we have to do it here in Washington. 
I am bothered by the inconsistency.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senators' interests and comments. I 
say this: If, in Louisiana, a decision was made to build a highway, 
bridge, or a rail spur, that does not necessarily present any danger or 
any problems for people in the neighboring States.
  However, if State ``A'' has an open, or has no restrictions on 
drinking and driving, no open container law, and does not enforce the 
21 drinking age law, it invites disaster, because young people from 
State ``B''--we call those blood borders. That is why the 21 drinking 
age bill was put into place in the first place. These are young kids. I 
have it in my State. It happened between New Jersey and New York and 
between Wisconsin and Illinois. There are a lot of instances around the 
country. Young people in New Jersey --at one point, we had an 18-year-
old drinking age. When the law turned to 21 because we were losing too 
many kids on our highways, New York State invited them over. They would 
go over and they would come back and come down ``slaughter alley,'' a 
particular road and often would not make it home. Boy, that convinced 
me, and I said we ought to have a standard that applies all over. What 
you do in one State can seriously affect the lives and well-being of 
others in other States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair advises the Senator that his time 
has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there any more time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 7 minutes on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Virginia would be willing--I know we are headed toward a 
vote, and I was willing to agree to the shortest time agreement. I 
wonder if they would permit an additional 5 minutes prior to the vote 
so that the Senator from Arkansas might speak on this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator restate the request?
  Mr. DORGAN. We have apparently 5 or 6 minutes before the votes will 
begin. I would like some time for the Senator from Arkansas to speak.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would provide 4 or 5 minutes so the 
Senator from Arkansas can have some time, along with the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. WARNER. Would 6 minutes be agreeable? We will yield 7.
  Mr. President, I make a unanimous consent request that the Senator 
from North Dakota have 7 minutes under his control.
  Mr. DORGAN. I very much appreciate the generosity. [[Page S 8785]] 
  I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I will wrap up my comments by 
noting that around this place lately we have been talking about values, 
about family, about structure, about behavior. And while we do not 
regulate behavior here, we talk often about models, examples, and about 
conduct. One of the worst ways for any child growing up to get a 
picture of what he or she ought to do in adulthood is someone moving 
down the road with a beer can, pouring it down their throat at the same 
time that they are driving. It is not a good image, and it is not a 
good result. I hope that in the final analysis, the amendment by the 
Senator from North Dakota will prevail. It is an excellent amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. We are all victims of our own 
personal experiences. So I will tell you about mine. I was a freshman 
at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago. My brother was up at 
Harvard Law School. Both of us were there on the GI bill because I 
promise you my father could not afford that kind of education for us. 
One Sunday evening, I got this phone call that my mother and father had 
been in a car wreck, and the message was obviously tempered. But I got 
on a plane the first thing the next morning and flew home. It was tough 
to get home to Fort Smith, AR, from Chicago back in those days.
  But to shorten the story, my father owned a small farm over in 
Oklahoma, just across the Arkansas River from where we lived. He and my 
mother and a couple next door had gone over to look at the spinach, 
which was coming up, and they were going to start harvesting it the 
next day. They were coming back and were 10 miles west of Fort Smith, 
AR, on what is now I-40--this is the transportation bill. They were on 
an 18-foot narrow highway with no shoulders, and they came up over a 
slight hill, just a slight incline, at about dusky-dark--the wrong 
time, wrong place--roaring drunk, whom a cop had been chasing, but he 
had a flat tire and he lost him. He went over on my father's side of 
the road and, blam, our neighbor next door was killed instantly, and my 
mother died 2 days later. And my father died 5 days later.
  I have often wondered about how we establish death penalties in this 
country. You could not have taken an AK-47 and more deliberately killed 
my mother and father than to get behind the wheel of an automobile 
roaring drunk and, in a split second, destroy our family. So I have no 
problem supporting this amendment, the Byrd amendment, and any other 
amendment that anybody wants to offer dealing with this subject.
  As I was about to say a moment ago, this is a transportation bill. 
Almost precisely where my mother and father were killed, today is I-40. 
If I-40 had been there then, my mother and father would have lived a 
normal lifespan and we would have had the happiness that should have 
been ours for at least another 20 years.
  So I speak in favor of these magnificent highways we have today that 
give us some protection. As you know, the death rate on interstate 
highways is about 80 percent less than it is on all the other two-lane 
highways, because you do not have to worry about some drunk coming over 
a hill on the wrong side of the road. So I am pleased that we are 
trying to improve our highways in this country and give people like my 
father an opportunity not to have to face drunken drivers who do not 
have any better judgment than to get roaring drunk. And, as I say, 
surely as if he had an AK-47 in his hands, he could not have killed 
those three people any more efficiently.
  Why not the death penalty? I have always struggled with the death 
penalty, I admit it. I voted for it. It has always been a problem. But 
I have never been able to see the distinction between the people we 
provide the death penalty for and the guy who served 5 years in the 
penitentiary for killing my mother and father and their best friend 
next door.
  I will yield the floor and say that I strongly support the Senator 
from North Dakota, and I strongly support the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just wish to say that there are moments 
in the life of the U.S. Senate that one shall always remember, and I am 
privileged to have had a long, personal relationship with my good 
friend from Arkansas, predicated on many, many things that we have done 
and shared together.
  Tonight, the Senator has deeply touched this Senator, as I am sure 
many others, showing the courage to come over here and share with the 
Senate that story. I shall not forget it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the comanager, the Senator from Montana, 
and I have several amendments which we will now clear with the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 1448

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to cooperate with 
  the State of Wyoming in monitoring the changes in growth along, and 
traffic patterns of, certain road segments in Wyoming, for the purpose 
 of future consideration of the addition of the route segments to the 
                        National Highway System)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1448.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 8, line 3, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       On page 10, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (b) Routes Segments in Wyoming.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     cooperate with the State of Wyoming in monitoring the changes 
     in growth along, and traffic patterns of, the route segments 
     in Wyoming described in paragraph (2), for the purpose of 
     future consideration of the addition of the route segments to 
     the National Highway System in accordance with paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of section 103(c) of title 23, United States Code (as 
     added by subsection (a)).
       (2) Route segments.--The route segments referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are--
       (A) United States Route 191 from Rock Springs to Hoback 
     Junction;
       (B) United States Route 16 from Worland to Interstate Route 
     90; and
       (C) Wyoming Route 59 from Douglas to Gillette.

  Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment on behalf of the Senator from 
Wyoming, [Mr. Thomas].
  The amendment does not add new routes, nor does it provide any funds. 
It encourages the Federal Highway Administration and the State of 
Wyoming to monitor growth changes in the Wyoming National Highway 
System.
  I urge its acceptance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have examined this amendment and have 
no objections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1448) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1449

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of the two Senators from South Dakota, Mr. Pressler and Mr. Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Pressler, 
     for himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1449.

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

       Insert ``(a)'' immediately before ``Notwithstanding'' on 
     page 32, line 17.
       Insert a new subsection (b) after page 32, line 25, to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b) Upon receipt of a written notification by a State, 
     referring to its right to provide notification under this 
     subsection, the Secretary of Transportation shall waive, with 
     respect to such State, any requirement that [[Page S 
     8786]] such State use or plan to use the metric system with 
     respect to designing, preparing plans, specifications and 
     estimates, advertising, or taking any other action with 
     respect to Federal-aid highway projects or activities 
     utilizing funds authorized pursuant to title 23, United 
     States Code. Such waiver shall remain effective for the State 
     until the State notifies the Secretary to the contrary. 
     Provided further, a waiver granted by the Secretary will be 
     in effect until September 30, 2000.''

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, my amendment concerns the issue of 
metric conversion. It makes clear that in this era of significant 
budgetary pressures, expenditures on metric conversion does not deserve 
priority. We must preserve Federal and State transportation funds for 
more important needs. Let me explain.
  The Federal Highway Administration, by regulation, is requiring 
metric conversion of internal processes for all States by September 30, 
1996. If a State is not in compliance, Federal-aid highway funds will 
be lost. What would such internal conversion entail?
  In addition to engineering and planning concerns, this would require 
States to rewrite their highway and transportation design procedures as 
well as to rewrite their motor vehicle and drivers license manuals. 
Their procedures for the purchase of materials and equipment would need 
to be altered and they would need to provide retraining to workers. All 
this and more by September 30, 1996.
  Would a better approach not be to give States adequate time to 
allocate resources and provide for internal metric conversion based on 
their own unique funding priorities? It would.
  Mr. President, infrastructure needs and costs continue to increase 
dramatically. While I am not at all opposed to metric conversion, I 
believe it could best be accomplished at the discretion of each State. 
After all, should not each State be allowed to consider their unique 
funding needs? They should. And that is what my amendment would allow.
  Specifically, my amendment would allow the Secretary of 
Transportation to waive, upon the receipt of a written notification by 
a State, any requirement that such State use or plan to use the metric 
system with respect to designing, preparing plans, specifications and 
estimates, advertising, or taking any other action with respect to 
Federal-aid highway projects or activities. The waiver would be in 
effect until September 30, 2000.
  Mr. President, my amendment has no budget impact. However, it would 
help States with limited resources to deliver more services to their 
citizens. Should that not be our primary objective? I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senators Pressler and Daschle, the managers 
send this amendment.
  We accept the amendment to provide States until the year 2000 to 
convert their internal working documents to the metric measurements.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1449) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1450

(Purpose: To clarify eligibility of a Luzerne County, Pennsylvania rail 
    freight acquisition and improvement project for certain federal 
                         transportation funds)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Specter] an amendment and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1450.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . CLARIFICATION ELIGIBILITY.

       The improvements to the former Pocono Northeast Railway 
     Company freight rail line by the Luzerne County Redevelopment 
     Authority that are necessary to support the rail movement of 
     freight, shall be eligible for funding under sections 130, 
     144, and 149 of title 23, United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment allows for the economic 
redevelopment of the former Pocono Northeast Railway Co. No funds are 
involved.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1450) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1451

   (Purpose: To provide States with innovative financing options for 
                projects with dedicated revenue sources)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] for Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1451.

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

     SEC. 204. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES, TUNNELS, NON-TOLL ROADS THAT 
                   HAVE A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE, AND FERRIES.

       Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by revising the title to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 129. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, non-toll roads that 
       have a dedicated revenue source, and ferries''; and

       (2) by revising paragraph 129(a)(7) to read as follows:
       ``(7) Loans.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may loan an amount equal to all 
     or part of the Federal share of a toll project or a non-toll 
     project that has a dedicated revenue source, specifically 
     dedicated to such project or projects under this section, to 
     a public entity constructing or proposing to construct a toll 
     facility or non-toll facility with a dedicated revenue 
     source. Dedicated revenue sources for non-toll facilities 
     include: excise taxes, sales taxes, motor vehicle use fees, 
     tax on real property, tax increment financing, or such other 
     dedicated revenue source as the Secretary deems appropriate.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to make a simple 
change to S. 440, the National Highway System [NHS] Designation Act of 
1995.
  The amendment will allow States to lend all or part of the Federal 
share of the costs of transportation projects to public entities, so 
long as there is a dedicated revenue source associated with that 
project. Current law only allows toll projects to be eligible for this 
kind of financing. The increased flexibility provided by this amendment 
should help States and local governments that need more transportation 
funds to proceed with or continue construction of a greater number of 
vital projects.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleagues are able to accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the managers offer this amendment on 
behalf of Senator Levin. This amendment provides for innovative 
financing options for States. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1451) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1452

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senators Abraham and Levin and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Mr. Abraham, for 
     himself and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1452.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with. [[Page S 8787]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike lines 7 through 10 on page 33 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) I-73/74 North South Corridor from Charleston, 
     South Carolina, through Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to 
     Portsmouth, Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio, to termini at Detroit, 
     Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment makes one minor change to S. 
440, the National Highway System [NHS] Designation Act of 1995.
  The change will modify the current northern terminus of NHS high-
priority corridor Interstate 73/74. Currently, the bill designates 
Detroit, MI, as the only northern end of that corridor. This amendment 
adds Sault Ste. Marie, another major border crossing, as an additional 
terminus. The actual route to each terminus will be determined by the 
Federal Highway Administration [FHA] and the Michigan Department of 
Transportation [MDOT] after appropriate studies are completed.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleagues are able to accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is a modification to the I-
73 route in Michigan. The managers are pleased to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1452) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1453

    (Purpose: To provide for the transfer of funds between certain 
                  demonstration projects in Louisiana)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus] for Mr. Breaux, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1453.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN CERTAIN DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS IN LOUISIANA.

       Notwithstanding any other law, the funds available for 
     obligation to carry out the project in West Calcasieu Parish, 
     Louisiana, authorized by section 149(a)(87) of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
     (Public Law 101-17; 101 Stat. 194) shall be made available 
     for obligation to carry out the project for Lake Charles, 
     Louisiana, authorized by item 17 of the table in section 
     1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-240; 105 Stat. 2038).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the managers this amendment offer on 
behalf of Senator Breaux, to clarify the use of funds previously 
authorized for a Louisiana project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1453) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the 
amendment by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, just adopted, 
Senator Simpson of Wyoming be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1454

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] for Mr. Bumpers, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1454.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL AIRPORT CONNECTOR.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal 
     share for the intermodal connector to the Northwest Arkansas 
     Regional Airport from U.S. Highway 71 in Arkansas shall be 95 
     percent.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of Senator 
Bumpers of Arkansas provides uniform match for intermodal connector as 
part of U.S. 71 to the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1454) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendments are in order to be voted 
on. There will be the normal period of time allocated for the first 
amendment.
  Might I inquire as to whether or not we could get consent to have the 
sequential amendments 10 minutes each?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
first vote occurring this evening, the remaining votes--and there are 
two now scheduled--be in sequence and be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 1444

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on the motion to table amendment No. 1444, offered by the Senator from 
Delaware, [Mr. Roth].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1444) was 
rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was rejected.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers would like to address the 
Senate. May we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. It is the judgment of the managers that we can complete 
this bill tonight provided we can get a list of amendments which would 
remain in order. We are now compiling that list, and the managers urge 
all Senators who have any question about any amendment to kindly 
approach the desk here and address the managers or their staff, such 
that at the conclusion of this vote but before the third vote we can 
pose a unanimous consent request with regard to the remaining 
amendments, all of which we hope we can resolve without rollcall votes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wonder whether the managers of the bill 
are willing to have a voice vote on adoption of this amendment now.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would urge adoption of the Roth-Biden [[Page S 
8788]] amendment and ask for a voice vote on that now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1444) was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1446

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
Amendment No. 1446 offered by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Byrd]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--36

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
  So the amendment (No. 1446) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers are anxious to determine what 
amendments remain, in the hopes that we can establish a list and to 
lock in those amendments, and then determine whether or not rollcall 
votes are required.
  The amendments that this manager knows of, and I know that my 
distinguished colleague has others, are as follows: Senators Frist, 
Cohen, Smith, Hatfield, McCain second amendment, both Senators from 
Alaska and Senator Inouye, plus, of course, a managers' amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as near as I can determine, on our side 
there is an amendment by Senator Johnston dealing with high-priority 
corridors; Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski may have a colloquy. I am not 
sure if that is an amendment or not. Senator Ford, Senator Inouye, 
Senator Exon has three amendments, Senator Wellstone, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Boxer with two amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, are there other Senators who wish to 
express an interest in the amendments? If not, I ask unanimous consent 
that the list, as stated by the Senator from Virginia, as amended by 
the Senator from Montana, represent the totality of the amendments that 
can be further considered on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator from Alaska, both of his amendments 
are on the list.
  Mr. STEVENS. I still object.
  Mr. WARNER. Objection has been heard.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1445

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1445, offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 1445) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion to table the motion to reconsider. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and the 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I announce that the Senator from Delaware, 
[Mr. Biden], the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. Breaux], the Senator from 
California, [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Hollings], the Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from 
Illinois, [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 41, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     Breaux
     Cohen
     Feinstein
     Hollings
     Pryor
     Shelby
     Simon [[Page S 8789]] 
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to.


                          ____________________