[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8789-S8793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR PROJECT

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works a question of 
a clarifying nature regarding the provision in S. 440 which identifies 
and establishes the Alameda transportation corridor in my State of 
California as a ``high-priority corridor'' under section 1105 of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California 
for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me begin by first commending Senator Chafee, the 
committee chairman, Senator Warner, chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and my ranking member Senator Baucus 
for their support in recognizing the Alameda corridor as a project of 
critical importance not only to California's but to the Nation's 
economy.
  In recent months, the attention of Congress has been focused on how 
to reduce our budget deficit and how to restructure infrastructure 
spending. As important as these goals are, it remains critical in this 
new era in the Federal budget process to support infrastructure 
projects which have national significance. I support innovative 
solutions to meet our transportation infrastructure needs.
  The Alameda transportation corridor is one of the most critically 
important infrastructure projects for the Nation. The project will 
streamline rail and highway transportation between the ports of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach, and intermodal connections in downtown Los 
Angeles. The rail portion of the project will consolidate the 
operations of three freight carriers into one higher speed corridor and 
eliminate conflicts with highway crossings. Highways will also be 
improved to provide better access from the ports to the freeways. The 
increased transportation efficiency will provide the added benefit of 
decreased air pollution.
  Last year the ports handled $74.3 billion in exported or imported 
goods. That amount represents 27 percent of the national value of 
exports and imports. This volume of shipments produces more than $17.3 
billion in Federal, State, and local taxes nationwide. With completion 
of the project, these figures will substantially increase. The ports 
estimate that the project will increase national economic output by an 
estimated $170 billion annually and will increase total Federal 
revenues by approximately $32 billion.
  The Alameda corridor will mean billions in increased trade for the 
United States, hundreds of millions in new tax revenue to State and 
local governments throughout the country, and the addition of hundreds 
of thousands of jobs nationwide.
  Recognizing the national significance of the project, Mr. President, 
I would like to pose the following question to Senator Chafee: As I 
understand section 1105 of ISTEA, the designation of the Alameda 
transportation corridor as a ``high-priority corridor'' under this 
section will enable the Secretary of Transportation to work 
cooperatively with the project sponsors on using creative financing to 
advance the project, including eligibility for a line a credit. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The designation of the Alameda transportation 
corridor as a ``high-priority corridor'' reflects the committee's 
determination that the project merits an ongoing Federal role based 
upon the long-term potential benefits to interstate and international 
commerce. The Alameda corridor is, indeed, a project of national 
significance.
  Under section 1105, high-priority corridors are eligible for creative 
financing with the Secretary. This eligibility includes participation 
in the Priority Corridor Revolving Loan Fund, the establishment of a 
line of credit, and other methods of financing. The section 1105 
``high-priority'' designation allows the corridor project to help 
itself by making it eligible for these innovative financing options.
  I would encourage the Secretary to work with the project sponsors to 
identify and pursue those creative financing options that will assist 
the timely completion of the project.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the clarification and 
again commend him for his assistance in moving this project forward.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about several 
votes on amendments to the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995. These votes did not reflect a lack of support for helmet and 
seatbelt laws or speed limits on our highways. They reflected a choice 
as to the appropriate level of government to make those decisions. I 
believe these decisions are better decided, not by the Federal 
Government, but by each individual State, taking into consideration 
local conditions and local demographics.
  Issues involving highway safety have always been important to me, 
dating back to my years as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I 
know the members of the Virginia General Assembly and the citizens of 
my State care very deeply about these issues as well.
  Mr. President, existing Federal requirements forcing States to impose 
safety belt and helmet laws have had their intended consequences. Most 
States have enacted helmet and seatbelt laws. In my view, the time has 
come to remove the Federal Government from issues which properly fall 
within the province of the States. In the spirit of devolving non-
Federal responsibilities to the States, I think we can start with 
ending the Federal role in setting traffic laws. At some point, we must 
trust the States on issues which fall particularly within their areas 
of expertise and for which they bear the full responsibility of 
enforcement.
  To conclude, Mr. President, my votes yesterday were not to repeal 
safety laws or speed limits. I personally support helmet laws and 
seatbelt requirements. My votes were to allow Virginia and other States 
to use their own expertise to determine the laws that will best serve 
their citizens and enhance their safety.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today as a cosponsor of 
S. 440 to encourage the adoption of this legislation designating the 
National Highway System. This bill contains significant reforms that 
are important to Kansas and our country's transportation system.
  There has been a great deal of support for the designation of the 
National Highway System. The 159,000 miles identified in this bill 
represent each State's primary routes connecting major population 
centers, transportation facilities, and other intermodal efforts. Our 
highway system is a network whose maintenance and upkeep are crucial to 
our economy. As new technological developments for intermodal 
transportation are created, the interconnectivity of our country's 
transportation system becomes increasingly important. This designation 
will allow for much needed funds to flow to our States directly.
  I appreciate the efforts of Senator Warner and Senator Chafee to 
address specific areas of concern for Kansas. The designation of the I-
35 corridor identifies an existing route from Texas to Kansas to 
Minnesota that is a valuable link between Mexico and Canada. The 
demands on these transportation routes connecting Canada, the United 
States, and Mexico will only increase. As our demand for trade among 
these countries grows, so will our need to develop and maintain these 
transportation routes.
  Several issues addressed in this bill have long been in need of 
attention. The repeal of the crumb rubber mandate, removal of metric 
measurements requirements, and hours of service clarifications are of 
great interest to many Kansans. Although we did not pursue the repeal 
of Davis-Bacon in this legislation, the repeal of this outdated law 
will continue to be a high priority. Throughout this debate, efforts 
have been made to give the States a greater role in setting their own 
transportation policy. The issue is not whether there should be a 
speed-limit or mandatory helmet or seatbelt law. The issue is who 
decides: is it Congress or each of the respective States?
  In addition, I would like to thank Senator Chafee for joining with me 
in addressing the concerns of water-well [[Page S 8790]] drillers and 
the hours-of-service regulations. The language in S. 440 resolves an 
unintended problem by requiring the drivers of water well drilling rigs 
to comply with the same hours of service regulations currently provided 
to drivers of vehicles in oilfield operations while maintaining safety 
priorities.
  I believe the National Highway System designation, as well as other 
provisions contained in S. 440, provide a positive step forward in 
addressing our Nation's transportation needs.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of S. 440.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the legislation before us, S. 440, the National Highway 
Designation Act. This is landmark legislation because it expands the 
existing Federal Interstate Highway System into a national system that 
includes the major roadways in every State. The identification of these 
important State highways and their eligibility for Federal highway 
funding is a significant step forward in strengthening the 
transportation network of our country.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
sub-committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I have been very 
involved in the drafting of many sections of this bill, the repeals of 
the crumb rubber and national speed limit mandates and, most 
importantly to me personally, funding authority for the National 
Recreational Trails Program. The trails program was established in the 
original ISTEA bill but has not been fully implemented due to an 
inconsistent funding source. In this bill we have finally authorized 
contract funding authority to provide moneys from the Highway Trust 
Fund to design, build and maintain a national trail system for both 
motorized and non-motorized recreational uses.
  I think that the committee amendment is good legislation. It reflects 
many hours of diligent and thoughtful effort by the committee members, 
and I want to particularly acknowledge the efforts of the 
Transportation Committee Chairman Senator Warner and his staff.
  The committee draft includes several provisions that are of critical 
importance to both the Nation and my home State of Idaho. These 
improvements share the common themes of deregulation and 
decentralization as we streamline and, in some cases, eliminate 
existing Federal transportation regulations and mandates. Some of these 
changes to present law revolve around the restoration of States rights 
in determining how to fund, construct and manage the highways in their 
individual States. My own State of Idaho has struggled in the past with 
these very issues because we also believe that these decisions are 
better left to be resolved by State legislatures. Federal bureaucrats 
in Washington, DC seldom, if ever, have a better sense of what is 
appropriate in the 50 individual States than those folks who are 
elected locally.
  We have seen over and over again that rules and regulations drafted 
in Washington, DC which are designed to deal with specific regional 
problems, but which have national application, often times are too far 
reaching and burdensome to a majority of the country. Prime examples of 
these types of mandates presently in highway legislation include the 
national speed limit mandate, the financial penalties for noncompliance 
with mandatory helmet and seat belt laws and the financial penalties 
for noncompliance with the crumb rubber requirement.
  It is not reasonable to assume that highway conditions and demands 
are the same in a predominately urban and heavily populated State as 
they would be in a primarily rural State like Idaho. For example the 
needs of Atlanta, Idaho, which has a population of just 200, a single 
road, one bridge, and plenty of wide open spaces are quite different 
from the needs of Atlanta, GA which has a population of 500,000.
  The application of the crumb rubber minimum utilization requirement 
may work in some geographic areas that do not have great temperature 
variations and light commercial truck volume but, in the high mountain 
passes of Idaho, this mandate was a failure and resulted in a waste of 
both Federal and State highway dollars. This Idaho crumb rubber pilot 
project was on U.S. 30 at the Fish Creek Summit which is situated at an 
elevation of 5,000 feet. Mr. Brent Frank, the Idaho DOT District 5 
engineer, reported that the section of highway where crumb rubber was 
used displayed severe wheel rutting of up to 3 inches in depth after 
just 1 year. Normal wear of conventional paving materials would be 1 
inch of rutting in 10 years. And, although Mr. Frank is reluctant to 
place the total blame for the accelerated deterioration on the recycled 
paving material, the Idaho DOT has suspended a second project that was 
to use the recycled material. There simply was not sufficient research 
and study conducted on this process prior to implementation of the 
mandate.
  The good news is that each of the examples I have cited has been 
addressed to one degree or another in the committee bill. Several 
additional amendments will be offered which afford even more 
flexibility and discretion to local authorities to design programs that 
fit the needs of their constituents. I have co-sponsored two of these 
which deal with the repeal of financial penalties for noncompliance 
with Federal seat belt and helmet laws. Do I personally always use seat 
belts? Do I require that our children always wear seat belts? 
Absolutely. But I believe that this is a decision that should be made 
by the individual State legislatures.
  These types of issues should not be decided by congressional studies 
or surveys, but rather on the constitutional grounds of the 10th 
amendment. I am unconditionally opposed to Federal edicts and mandates 
to the States, particularly in matters such as these where the Federal 
Government imposes financial penalties on States by redirecting moneys 
from a trust fund that was paid for by the very citizens that are being 
penalized.
  I am hopeful that a majority of our colleagues will join in the 
effort to return these decisions where they belong--to the individual 
States.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, once again the managers would like to 
address the Senate in the hopes that we can tonight ascertain the full 
list of amendments that will be considered on this bill. The list as it 
now stands of Senators is as follows: Senator Frist, Senator Cohen, 
Senator Smith, Senator Inouye, Senator Hatfield, Senator McCain, 
Senator Johnston, Senator Ford, Senator Grams, Senator Wellstone, 
Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Ford, 
Senator Exon, Senator Boxer, Senator Chafee, Senator Nickles, and the 
amendment by the managers.
  I ask my colleagues. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask my good friend and colleague from Virginia? 
Does he have Senator Stevens?
  Mr. WARNER. We have Senators Stevens and Murkowski.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Johnston?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Three amendments by Senator Exon?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. John Kerry?
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest you add him--he was on and struck off--if you 
wish to put him back on.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Two Boxer amendments?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Sarbanes?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. And the managers?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is the list.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is the list as we know it.
  I now ask unanimous consent that that constitute the remaining 
amendments that can be brought up on this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, because 
of our inability to resolve an issue that affects our State, not having 
the assurance that we can resolve this, even though I arranged for a 
meeting to take place tomorrow morning relative to the concerns that we 
have concerning that issue, I feel I must object.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I remind the Senator that we have his 
amendment on this list. We can add a second amendment. So he can have 
two amendments on this list.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might also remind the Senator that there 
is no time agreement. So I think the Senator is fully protected.
[[Page S 8791]]

  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is fully protected. But it would enable the 
leaders in the Senate and the managers to get this bill through.
  So I once again ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry. This is of such importance 
to us. I appreciate the patience of the floor managers and the fact we 
are going to proceed with this tomorrow. But we have been at this for 
some 15 years since statehood, and we are so close to it now that 
unless we can reach some kind of an accord, I feel compelled to raise 
an objection at this time.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could say one thing to my colleague at this time, 
let us make it clear that we have accepted one amendment from Alaska. 
We are going to clear it tonight. The second one, of which the Senator 
spoke, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has no 
jurisdiction whatsoever.
  Am I not correct?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. It is a matter that rests before the committee of which 
the distinguished Senator is the chairman.
  Given those facts, would the Senator not be fully protected by just 
leaving it on the list and, therefore, we can have a unanimous consent 
agreement that this list constitutes the totality of all amendments?
  I ask the Senator once again so we can move this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think my friend from Virginia would recognize that 
in the years I have been here I have been most cooperative in trying to 
accommodate various Members. But this is an issue that is as important 
to us as any issue that we have ever had, and it is simply the right of 
access across Federal lands so that we can get to our private lands in 
the State, and there is an environmental objection from various groups 
that have persuaded Members that this is something they simply do not 
want to see addressed and resolved.
  We see no other alternative other than to attempt to use every method 
that we can to try to bring some justice to the contract that was made 
when we entered into the statehood compact. The fact that we have been 
at this for so long, the fact that it belongs in this bill--and I 
recognize the comment made by the Senator from Virginia that some of 
the objection is within the Energy Committee, of which I happen to 
chair, and I hope that I will be able to prevail.
  I wonder if the senior Senator from Alaska has any comments relative 
to this.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do 
believe we speak for the State of Utah also that has a similar problem 
which is very pertinent to this bill. This is the highway bill. We are 
trying to preserve our highway rights of way as other western States 
have. And we now find a new form of discrimination against us because 
we seek to use the rights of way created by the public over Federal 
lands. I think we are entitled to persist on this as long as we have to 
in order to get our rights recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senators from 
Alaska if there is some other provision we could incorporate in this 
agreement to accommodate them? They are protected. They now have an 
opportunity to offer an amendment. There is no time agreement.
  I wonder if there is anything else we might consider at this point 
that the Senators would like to suggest that we could possibly 
incorporate in this agreement so that we can accommodate the Senator's 
interest.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object again, I am 
waiting for some information from our State and from our offices in the 
State regarding this matter. I thought we were on our way to settling 
this earlier today. We are not. We have to get a considerable amount of 
material in. We will not get it in tonight. We do operate on a 
situation where, you will recall, it is 4 hours earlier in our State. 
But we still are in the situation where we have to wait until they open 
in the morning and send us the information.
  I do think it is not an unreasonable request that we be permitted to 
have the time necessary to deal with this objection. We just heard this 
afternoon.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana made a suggestion, 
if we could agree on the other amendments, to have the Senator from 
Alaska have the right to offer an amendment any time before final 
disposition of the bill, and that will give them time to decide 
precisely what amendment, if any, they wish to offer. Of course, the 
materials are not here. You are not going to let the bill go to final 
disposition. At least we would have a partial cap on the amendments.
  I think the managers are prepared to stay here tonight and not have 
any more votes but to accept some amendments that may be pending.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall 
not object, but it is just simply inconceivable and unacceptable to 
those of us in Alaska that this basic right that we were guaranteed 
under the statehood compact that we go out and identify those 
traditional trails, winter trails, access wagon roads, across Federal 
lands that have been utilized and those that have been completed--some 
500 and some have been documented--and submitted, that we cannot 
consummate what was guaranteed under the Statehood Act.
  It is very disappointing to me to find objections from other Senators 
that are strictly based on the feeling that this is a giant land grab. 
This is nothing more than the opportunity for the citizens of the State 
to traverse Federal land so they can get to their private land, so they 
can get to the State land.
  It is something every single State--at least in the western United 
States--which had any public land has enjoyed. And we simply cannot 
understand why it is not acceptable.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I shall 
not object, if the suggestion under the majority leader is 
incorporated--in other words, if we are not limited in the solution we 
may want to offer to this bill to this problem. We do not want to be 
tied down to just one amendment or amendments that might not be in 
order in terms of the circumstances that might be developed under this 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  My understanding is that the leader has suggested we be permitted to 
offer an amendment or amendments to deal with the problems we have been 
talking about, and there will be no time limit on the bill under the 
circumstances of the agreement.
  I do not object.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I renew the request.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  I have a similar situation. I have two amendments pending. I am very 
willing to go with this approach. It would be very important to have 
the request for the amendments of the Senators from Alaska 
incorporated, so that, if we find another way to stop a problem, we are 
not inhibited from doing so.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request as 
amended by the colloquy between the distinguished majority leader, the 
Senator from Alaska, and the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, I have an amendment 
that I would like considered and I would like it placed on the list as 
well.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I amend the unanimous consent request to 
include the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also suggest to my good colleague that 
that request be subject to the usual parameters of the previous 
agreement, that is, the parameters of order No. 114, essentially that 
the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order 
and subject to relevant second degree, et cetera--the same parameters 
that are contained in order 114 of today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? [[Page S 8792]] 
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, the managers are prepared to continue 
consideration of amendments. We have several amendments which can be 
cleared, and we will proceed to do that expeditiously.
  Mr. DOLE. Is it fair to announce there will be no more votes this 
evening?
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes tonight.


                           Amendment No. 1455

(Purpose: To include the Dalton Highway in Alaska in the designation of 
                      the National Highway System)

       Mr. Warner. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment 
     on behalf of the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1455.

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

       On page 36, on line 12, strike the quotation mark and 
     second period and insert:
       ``(24) The Dalton Highway from Deadhorse, Alaska to 
     Fairbanks, Alaska.''.

  Mr. WARNER. I believe this amendment has been cleared by the 
distinguished Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the managers for 
accepting this amendment. It merely clarifies the status of the road 
that parallels the Alaska pipeline, an Alaska highway that can be the 
subject of expenditure of Federal highway funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe the vote is in order, and I urge 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1455) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask further proceedings under the quorum 
call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1456

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1456.

  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the appropriate place, insert the following: ``At the 
     end of section 5309(g)(4) of title 49, U.S.C., add the 
     following new sentence: `The Secretary may enter future 
     obligations in excess of 50 percent of said uncommitted cash 
     balance for the purpose of contingent commitments for 
     projects authorized under section 3032 of Public Law 102-
     240'.''

  Mr. CHAFEE. This is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides 
and is acceptable.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. This is offered on behalf of 
Senator Boxer dealing with future obligations. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1456) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, 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. 1457

 (Purpose: To maintain eligibility under the congestion mitigation and 
air quality improvement program for areas that received funding during 
      fiscal year 1994 and are nonattainment areas that have been 
                   redesignated as maintenance areas)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Tennessee, 
Mr. Frist, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Helms and Mr. Thompson, 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 Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Frist, 
     for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Helms and Mr. Thompson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1457.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 26, line 3, strike ``1995'' and insert ``1994''.
       On page 26, line 8, strike ``1995'' and insert ``1994''.
       On page 26, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (c) Effect of Limitation on Apportionment.--Notwithstanding 
     any other law, for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, any 
     limitation under this section or an amendment made by this 
     section on an apportionment otherwise authorized under 
     section 1003(a)(4) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 1919) 
     shall not affect any hold harmless apportionment adjustment 
     under section 1015(a) of the Act (Public Law 102-240; 105 
     Stat. 1943).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1457) 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.


                           Amendment No. 1458

 (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to the operating costs of the 
                   Boston-to-Portland rail corridor)

  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 amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might interject, I believe this is an 
amendment by Mr. Cohen of Maine.
  I believe the Senator from Virginia is correct that it is now an 
amendment on behalf of Mr. Cohen, and I request that the clerk so amend 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Cohen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1458.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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  . AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR BOSTON-TO-
                   PORTLAND RAIL CORRIDOR.

       Section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end of the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Boston-To-Portland Rail Corridor.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, up to $3,600,000 of the funds 
     made available under this section for the rail corridor 
     between Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine may be used 
     to pay for operating costs arising in connection with such 
     rail corridor under section 5333(b).''.

  Mr. WARNER. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair, and also the 
staff of the Senate. It appears that that should now be an amendment by 
the Senator from Maine, Mr. Cohen, and the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Kerry. I ask unanimous consent that the clerk so amend the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I am advised Senator Snowe likewise wishes to be a 
cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that she be added as a cosponsor. [[Page S 
8793]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1458) 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.


                           Amendment No. 1459

   (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to surface transportation 
                    projects in the State of Hawaii)

  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 amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Inouye, for 
     himself and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 1459.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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____. REVISION OF AUTHORITY OF MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.

       Section 3035(ww) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2136) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Of the funds 
     provided by this subsection, $100,000,000 is authorized to be 
     appropriated for regionally significant ground transportation 
     projects in the State of Hawaii.''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to surface 
transportation projects in the State of Hawaii. We have examined this 
amendment and agree to its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1459) 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.


                           Amendment No. 1460

  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 amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Johnston, 
     for himself and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1460.

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

       Add new section as follows:
       Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, section 
     1105(e)(2) of Public Law 102-240 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``A feasibility study may be 
     conducted under this subsection to identify routes that will 
     expedite future emergency evacuations of coastal areas of 
     Louisiana.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a feasibility study which I think 
merits our consideration and approval. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1460) 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.


                           Amendment No. 1461

 (Purpose: To modify the authorization for a demonstration project in 
                               Minnesota)

  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. Grams, for 
     himself and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1461.

  Mr. WARNER. 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  . 34TH STREET CORRIDOR PROJECT IN MOORHEAD, 
                   MINNESOTA.

       Section 149(a)(5)(A) of the Surface Transportation and 
     Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17; 
     101 Stat. 181) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by inserting ``and (iii) a safety overpass,'' after 
     ``interchange,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1461) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 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. 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.

                          ____________________