[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8875-S8885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 440) to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
     provide for the designation of the National Highway System, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers wish to report steady 
progress on this bill. However, we have an amendment now being reviewed 
by all parties involved in the Stevens-Murkowski amendment. We are 
awaiting a report back on their negotiations, which I am hopeful will 
resolve these issues.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we can now proceed.
  Once again, I wish to inform the Senate on behalf of the managers 
that we are making progress. The one remaining amendment which is yet 
to really be fully reconciled is that regarding the issues in Alaska, 
the amendment proposed, of course, by the senior Senator and junior 
Senator, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Murkowski.
  Until that matter is further refined, I have nothing further at this 
time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1464

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Smith and Senator 
Gregg, 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 Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Smith, 
     for himself and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1464.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 on the bill add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  .

       The State of New Hampshire shall be deemed as having met 
     the safety belt use law requirements of section 153 of title 
     23 of the U.S. Code, upon certification by the Secretary of 
     Transportation that the State has achieved--
       (a) a safety belt use rate in each of fiscal years ending 
     September 30, 1995 and September 30, 1996, of not less than 
     50 percent; and
       (b) a safety belt use rate in each succeeding fiscal year 
     thereafter of not less than the national average safety belt 
     use rate, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which 
allows New Hampshire to meet the safety belt use law requirements under 
section 153 of ISTEA. Under this amendment, highway safety funds would 
not be transferred from highway construction projects to highway safety 
programs if the safety belt use rate in fiscal years ending September 
30, 1995, and September 30, 1996, is not less than 50 percent. In 
fiscal years thereafter safety belt rate shall not fall below the 
national average as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.
  It is my belief that the Federal Government should not mandate 
seatbelts; those decisions should be left to the States. I believe all 
individuals should wear seatbelts whenever they ride in a vehicle. 
Furthermore, I believe that local government, not the Federal 
Government, should continue to play a role in educating people 
regarding the need to take every precaution when operating a vehicle.
  As a former Governor, I realize firsthand the frustration local 
government experiences when the Federal Government attempts to 
micromanage public policy. Americans no longer want big brother looking 
over their shoulder attempting to force compliance with regard to 
seatbelt compliance.
  I am pleased that this amendment, which allows New Hampshire to be 
judged on its safety record for safety belt usage, has been adopted. 
This amendment will remove the current unfair mandatory penalties 
forced on New Hampshire without regard for its excellent seatbelt 
compliance record.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that takes care of a 
particular situation that has arisen in New Hampshire and addresses the 
desires of the Senators there. They are doing extremely well as far as 
their seatbelt usage goes. This makes them continue in that path and 
move up to the national average as time goes on.
  It is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides, and I think 
it is a good one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. May I ask the distinguished chairman of the committee, is 
this the same version the chairman showed me not too long ago, maybe 
about an hour or so ago?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have examined this amendment and we 
think it is acceptable.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill, 
the Senators from Rhode Island, Virginia, [[Page S 8876]] and Montana, 
for working with me on a compromise amendment that would provide relief 
to the State of New Hampshire from certain highway-related penalties. 
The issue we have been debating for the last 2 days in section 153 of 
ISTEA, which sanctions States that have not enacted mandatory 
motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws.
  This section of current law penalized the State of New Hampshire by 
diverting its scarce highway maintenance and construction funds to its 
safety program--whether or not this makes any sense. In other words, 
the penalties are assessed regardless of whether New Hampshire already 
has an adequately funded safety program directed toward helmet and 
seatbelt usage, and irrespective of New Hampshire's safety record. 
States constantly tell us that they are in a better position to address 
these types of issues than the Federal Government is, and I strongly 
agree.
  Yesterday, the Senate voted to repeal the penalties for noncompliance 
with motorcycle helmet laws. Today, we have reached an agreement on an 
amendment that would provide an incentive for the State of New 
Hampshire, which does not have mandatory seatbelt law, to maintain its 
50 + seatbelt use rate and strive to reach the national average within 
2 years. If they do not meet these goals, then the sanctions will be 
imposed as current law dictates.
  This is a very reasonable amendment and it does not compromise the 
Senator from Rhode Island's objective of achieving a higher percentage 
of individuals wearing seat belts. In fact, it creates a more effective 
incentive, without being punitive or infringing on States rights.
  New Hampshire will continue to education its citizens on the benefits 
of seatbelt use. Educational programs like those we have in New 
Hampshire certainly play an important role in increasing highway 
safety. States do have the expertise and know-how to develop their own 
programs without Federal intimidation.
  In conclusion, I strongly believe that it is through education, not 
necessarily a mandatory law, that we will achieve higher rates of 
seatbelt use. New Hampshire is capable of ensuring the safety of its 
citizens without the paternalistic arm of the Federal Government 
dictating to us how we should accomplish this goal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending before this, 
the Exon amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two amendments pending at the 
present time, the Smith amendment----
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is the Smith amendment ready for consideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1464) 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if there is no other business to come 
before us immediately, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will withhold 
just for a comment or two about the bill?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I certainly will.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding it would be in 
order for comments to be made about the bill, not necessarily about the 
amendment that is pending. Is that correct, as a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The managers of 
the bill are awaiting reconciliation of several amendments. At that 
point in time, we will move toward final passage, but we welcome the 
comments of our distinguished colleague from Mississippi beforehand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me commend the managers of the bill 
for the good work they have done in bringing this legislation to the 
floor. It is an important contribution to the infrastructure of this 
country for the Congress to take action on this bill in a timely 
fashion so States and localities who depend upon these allocations of 
funds can make plans to do it in a systematic way and to carry forward 
some of the important road and bridge projects that would be funded in 
this legislation.
  I know in our State of Mississippi hardly a bill is passed by the 
Congress that is more important to the continued economic progress and 
development of our State than this legislation that is before the 
Senate today.
  I know that there is also a continuation of a study called corridor 
18. That may very well provide a new major corridor and interstate type 
highway which could go through Mississippi, and it may very well, I am 
sure, traverse many States in the central part of the country, from 
Ohio down to Houston, TX, and maybe beyond. There are many communities 
along this potential corridor that would benefit substantially in an 
economic way from the opportunities to grow and develop, providing 
jobs, producing economic activity and business activity along the way. 
We hope that study can be successfully completed, and the feasibility 
of it established so that in a timely way we can see the ultimate 
construction of that.
  There are other parts of the bill in which we are interested as well. 
It was brought to the attention of the manager that there is some 
language that we would like to see included in a managers' amendment at 
the appropriate point to permit our State to have access to a visitors 
center just south of the Tennessee line. This was something that was 
provided for in the 1994 appropriations bill but has not yet been 
finally resolved. We hope that this bill can include some language that 
would help that situation be resolved in a satisfactory way.
  But all in all, this is a good bill. It is an important bill. It is a 
restrained bill. The Senators have been encouraged not to get involved 
in new demonstration type projects in the bill. I know we cooperated in 
that.
  We want the managers to know that we appreciate the way that they 
have maintained discipline in this process and have shown that 
restraint.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
  I wish to bring this to his attention. He said we have asked them not 
to add projects. We have not added any. I think this bill can meet 
whatever test as a clean test in terms of demonstration projects. The 
American public does not want to see these anymore. The various 
Governors and highway commissions in the several States do not want to 
see them anymore. I think this bill is a landmark bill in terms of its 
absence of that type of project. That is owing to the full cooperation 
of the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
  So I thank the Senator for bringing it up. I was fearful when he said 
add not a lot, some might in turn interpret that as that some had been 
added.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia for his comments. I certainly agree with him. I recall in my 
early days in the Congress. I served in the other body, and I was 
assigned to the Public Works and Transportation Committee. I served on 
the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. I had some good experience in 
working with Senators, like Senator Chafee, and other members of 
committee over here on this side of the Capitol.
  This is important work. I think it is work that has been well done, 
and I commend all Senators who have had an active role in the 
development of the bill and the managing of it on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Mississippi for his very generous comments. I appreciate the kind words 
he had to say about the work we have done.
  I discovered that I have come to the conclusion after a while around 
here that there are a few bills that attract more attention than 
highway bills. Everybody shows up when there is a highway bill. And I 
must say the Senators have exhibited tremendous restraint. Maybe the 
restraint came about because we did not adopt any. I do not [[Page S 
8877]] think there is a single demonstration project in this bill. I 
would not know. Because if there was one, I would have one in there for 
Rhode Island.
  But the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has resisted any 
such demonstration grants or specific authorizations for projects 
within this State or that State. And, so far, we are not through yet. 
We are not across the finish line. But we have done pretty well so far. 
If the word should get out that we did any, if we did, I am sure that 
we would have not four amendments left but 100.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we can continue the restraint we have 
shown. I appreciate the wonderful support of the Senator from 
Mississippi who has been long interested in these matters.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our distinguished chairman of the 
committee, I wish to reiterate it has been a bipartisan effort. There 
has been complete cooperation. Many Senators thinking this was an 
appropriate piece of legislation, as it has been in the past for such 
projects, came up and, when we acquainted them with the policy 
decision, they accepted it; indeed, in many respects endorsed it 
knowing that history shows that so many projects of that type that were 
adopted by the Congress have gone back to the States and have proven 
not to be in terms of priorities what the States really need. Now the 
States are given greater discretion and the money with which to 
exercise that discretion.
  I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to echo what the Senator from 
Virginia said about the bipartisan effort, that the senior Senator from 
Montana has been tremendously helpful in this. It is not easy. We all 
have friends that come up and want to remind us of what we want from 
their committee; and, two, what a modest little item it is that they 
are requesting. So far, so good. I hope we can continue in that regard.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island--I 
know there are four amendments. Are they going to be offered? Should we 
move on to another bill and come back to this next week? We do not want 
to sit here in a quorum call for a couple of hours while Members are 
floating around the Capitol.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could most respectfully address our leader, I would 
urge that he give us a brief period of time within which to urge the 
presentation of these amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. Which four are they? Maybe we can identify the players and 
have them get over here.
  Mr. WARNER. The principal amendment for which there could be some 
concern is the amendment of the two Senators from Alaska. Within the 
hour I have consulted with them on it. Frankly, they are questions in 
my judgment, and very legitimate ones. It is a problem involving State 
rights. It goes back many years in Alaska. I left one of the two 
Senators with the clear impression that he was going to present the 
amendment, and unless he is able to effect a resolution of the matter--
I am prepared to accept the amendment from the Senator from Alaska. I 
would have to allow the other side to speak for itself on this issue.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we might have a quorum?
  Mr. DOLE. Is it a managers' amendment? I do not know which amendments 
they are. I am serious.
  Mr. WARNER. There is a managers' amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Is that one of the four?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. An Exon amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that amendment has been resolved, the Exon 
amendment. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be 
deleted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. So that would leave Stevens-Murkowski.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. That is one amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Chafee-Warner, a managers' amendment. That is the second 
amendment. Are there two others? Smith?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is resolved. There are only two.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is a remaining one from the Senator 
from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes]. I have spoken with him within the hour, 
and indicating--and I will take responsibility--that I cannot accept 
the amendment. It relates to the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. I am 
fearful it would be construed by other Senators as being in the nature 
of a--even though it is authorized already--project. And I felt that I 
could not accede to his request, regrettably. So that amendment would 
not be accepted on this side.
  Mr. DOLE. I certainly want to thank the managers. I do not have any 
quarrel with the managers. But those who have amendments, you know--
people are going to be wanting to get out of here for an August recess. 
They do not want to be here late at night. But they do not want to be 
here in the afternoon. We cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We would prefer not to be here in the morning either.
  Mr. DOLE. They do not want to be here in the morning either. It is 
very difficult for the managers who are down to three amendments. They 
have been on this bill long enough--last week, and 4 days this week. 
The bill was supposed to take 2 days. It has taken almost 5. Because we 
want to go to securities litigation next, the only thing I know, 
without prejudicing the managers, if we cannot conclude it by 3:30, 
then we would move to another matter and this would come back sometime 
when we finished the next bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I would say to the distinguished leader that the 
managers' amendment is prepared in the nature of a technical amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Sure.
  Mr. WARNER. There really is only one amendment, and that is the one 
by the two Senators from Alaska. I will go back to them immediately to 
determine what their desire is.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
                        private property rights

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a short colloquy 
with the Senator from Rhode Island, the distinguished chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, the manager of this bill.
  Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment which would 
broaden the definition of like-kind property that would allow affected 
landowners to defer the capital gains tax after the forced sale of 
property which is taken for use in various infrastructure projects. I 
simply do not believe it is fair to expect property owners who do not 
wish to sell their property to be unable to defer their capital gains 
tax if they are not able to reinvest the amount of the gain in an 
expanded like-kind property. It is my desire to work with you in your 
capacity as a member of the Finance Committee to achieve a broader 
definition of like-kind property.
  I have discussed this matter with the Finance Committee staff. 
However, I would respectfully ask your assistance in ensuring that the 
Finance Committee will examine this issue when it considers 
reconciliation this year.
  If that is possible, I would be pleased to withdraw my amendment from 
consideration.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I understand the problem the Senator from Minnesota has 
raised. I will ask the chairman of the Finance Committee to examine 
this issue when the committee considers reconciliation, and 
specifically to consider the problem highlighted by the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is on the list of amendments an 
amendment by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes]. That amendment, 
regrettably, cannot be accepted and, therefore, it will not be 
considered as a part of this bill.
  That leaves on the list the only amendments being that of the 
Senators from Alaska and the managers' amendment. I understand there is 
an amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] that is still 
on the list, and I am not prepared to act on that right now.
  I ask my comanager if this is a time and moment to go to the 
managers' amendment.
[[Page S 8878]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is, I think, 
very timely. I might say, I do not know what progress we are going to 
make, if any, on the Nickles amendment. This side does not know what it 
is. I see the Senator from Oklahoma on the floor right now. Maybe he is 
in a position to tell us.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to inform my colleagues. 
The essence of the amendment is to allow States that do not have Amtrak 
service to use some of their mass transit moneys to subsidize Amtrak 
service. Senator D'Amato indicated some reservations about it. We are 
trying to work with him. Hopefully, we will have that worked out in a 
few moments.
  Mr. WARNER. So I understand, a few moments could be a few minutes?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1465

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk now the managers' 
amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Chafee and the Senator from Montana, 
Mr. Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 1465.

  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 22, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO THIRD 
                   PARTY SELLERS.

       Section 133(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Applicability of certain requirements to third party 
     sellers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), in the case of a transportation enhancement activity 
     funded from the allocation required under paragraph (2), if 
     real property or an interest in real property is to be 
     acquired from a qualified organization exclusively for 
     conservation purposes (as determined under section 170(h) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), the organization shall be 
     considered to be the owner of the property for the purpose of 
     the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
       ``(B) Federal approval prior to involvement of qualified 
     organization.--If Federal approval of the acquisition of the 
     real property or interest predates the involvement of a 
     qualified organization described in subparagraph (A) in the 
     acquisition of the property, the organization shall be 
     considered to be an acquiring agency or person as described 
     in section 24.101(a)(2) of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, for the purpose of the Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
       ``(C) Acquisitions on behalf of recipients of federal 
     funds.--If a qualified organization described in subparagraph 
     (A) has contracted with a State highway administration or 
     other recipient of Federal funds to acquire the real property 
     or interest on behalf of the recipient, the organization 
     shall be considered to be an agent of the recipient for the 
     purpose of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et 
     seq.).''.
       On page 26, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (3) Orange street bridge, missoula, montana.--
     Notwithstanding section 149 of title 23, United States Code, 
     or any other law, a project to construct new capacity for the 
     Orange Street Bridge in Missoula, Montana, shall be eligible 
     for funding under the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program established under the section.
       On page 26, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (c) Traffic Monitoring, Management, and Control Facilities 
     and Programs.--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) to establish or operate a traffic monitoring, 
     management, and control facility or program if the Secretary, 
     after consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, determines that the facility 
     or program is likely to contribute to the attainment of a 
     national ambient air quality standard.''.
       On page 30, strike line 14 and insert the following:

     SEC. 119. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

       On page 30, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Intelligent Vehicle-
     Highway Systems'' and insert ``Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems''.
       On page 31, lines 1 and 2, strike ``Intelligent Vehicle-
     Highway Systems'' and insert ``Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems''.
       On page 31, lines 10 and 11, strike ``intelligent vehicle-
     highway systems'' and insert ``intelligent transportation 
     systems''.
       On page 31, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table in section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2048) is amended--
       (A) in item 10, by striking ``(IVHS)'' and inserting 
     ``(ITS)''; and
       (B) in item 29, by striking ``intelligent/vehicle highway 
     systems'' and inserting ``intelligent transportation 
     systems''.
       (2) Section 6009(a)(6) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2176) is amended by striking ``intelligent vehicle 
     highway systems'' and inserting ``intelligent transportation 
     systems''.
       (3) Part B of title VI of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 23 
     U.S.C. 307 note) is amended--
       (A) by striking the part heading and inserting the 
     following:

            ``PART B--INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS'';

       (B) in section 6051, by striking ``Intelligent Vehicle-
     Highway Systems'' and inserting ``Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems'';
       (C) by striking ``intelligent vehicle-highway systems'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``intelligent 
     transportation systems'';
       (D) in section 6054--
       (i) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``intelligent 
     vehicle-highway'' and inserting ``intelligent transportation 
     systems''; and
       (ii) in the subsection heading of subsection (b), by 
     striking ``Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems'' and 
     inserting ``Intelligent Transportation Systems'';
       (E) in the subsection heading of section 6056(a), by 
     striking ``IVHS'' and inserting ``ITS'';
       (F) in the subsection heading of each of subsections (a) 
     and (b) of section 6058, by striking ``IVHS'' and inserting 
     ``ITS''; and
       (G) in the paragraph heading of section 6059(1), by 
     striking ``IVHS'' and inserting ``ITS''.
       (4) Section 310(c)(3) of the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-331; 23 U.S.C. 104 note), is amended by striking 
     ``intelligent vehicle highway systems'' and inserting 
     ``intelligent transportation systems''.
       (5) Section 109(a) of the Hazardous Materials 
     Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-311; 
     23 U.S.C. 307 note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Intelligent 
     Transportation Systems''; and
       (B) by striking ``intelligent vehicle-highway system'' and 
     inserting ``intelligent transportation system''.
       (6) Section 5316(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Intelligent 
     Vehicle-Highway'' and inserting ``Intelligent 
     Transportation''; and
       (B) by striking ``intelligent vehicle-highway'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``intelligent transportation''
       On page 33, line 19, strike ``intelligent vehicle-highway 
     systems'' and insert ``intelligent transportation systems''.
       On page 36, line 12, strike the quotation marks and the 
     following period.
       On page 36, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
     [[Page S 8879]]   ``(24) State Route 168 (South Battlefield 
     Boulevard), Virginia, from the Great Bridge Bypass to the 
     North Carolina State line.''.
       On page 38, beginning on line 2, strike ``and shall not'' 
     and all that follows through ``program'' on line 4.
       On page 40, strike lines 1 through 3.
       On page 43, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. REPORT ON ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall transmit to Congress a report evaluating the 
     effectiveness of all accelerated vehicle retirement programs 
     described in section 108(f)(1)(A)(xvi) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7408(f)(1)(A)(xvi)) in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act. The report shall evaluate--
       (1) the certainties of emissions reductions gained from 
     each program;
       (2) the variability of emissions of retired vehicles;
       (3) the reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled 
     by the vehicles retired as a result of each program;
       (4) the subsequent actions of vehicle owners participating 
     in each program concerning the purchase of a new or used 
     vehicle or the use of such a vehicle;
       (5) the length of the credit given to a purchaser of a 
     retired vehicle under each program;
       (6) equity impacts of the programs on the used car market 
     for buyers and sellers; and
       (7) such other factors as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate.
       On page 57, line 4, insert ``and'' at the end.
       On page 57, line 8, strike ``and'' at the end.
       On page 57, strike lines 9 through 11.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment makes technical changes to 
S. 440 and minor modifications that have been cleared on both sides. 
Such modifications include, first, streamlining the enhancements 
program and the traffic monitoring program; second, changing the name 
of ``intelligent vehicle highway systems'' to ``intelligent 
transportation systems''; and, third, require a report on effectiveness 
of accelerated retirement vehicle programs, and other purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is basically, as most managers' 
amendments are, an amendment which contains minor modifications and 
technical corrections. One I would like to point out to the Senate is 
the change in reference to the ``intelligence vehicle highway systems'' 
to ``intelligent transportation systems.''
  The theory of the ISTEA legislation that this is the heart of is that 
we are trying to broaden the definition of ``transportation'' to 
include intelligent functions; that is, more advanced technologies in 
highway travel to include not only highways but other transportation 
modes. It, obviously, includes seaports and also intermodal connectors.
  I urge the adoption of the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the managers' 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1465) 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, the two remaining amendments are being 
very actively worked on by their sponsors. The managers hope to be able 
to report to the Senate in a very brief period of time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to describe what I think is the 
result of the discussions that we have been having these past few days.
  First of all, let me say that I support passage of legislation to 
designate the National Highway System as directed by ISTEA, the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. I was, in 
fact, an original cosponsor of legislation in both the 103d and the 
104th Congresses to accomplish this task. This $6.5 billion bill 
authorizes critically needed funds, and I would like to consider just a 
few of the facts.
  Almost one-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition, 
while another 36 percent are rated in the fair category. One in five of 
the Nation's bridges is structurally deficient--20 percent--meaning 
that weight restrictions have been set to limit truck traffic.
  On urban interstate highways, the percentage of peak hour travel 
approaching gridlock conditions increased from 55 percent in 1983 to 70 
percent in 1991, costing the economy $39 billion.
  Experts indicate that an additional annual investment of $32 billion 
is needed to bring our highway and bridge infrastructures up to date, 
and failure to make those investments increases the costs, both in the 
short and long term.
  For example, failure to invest a dollar today in needed highway 
resurfacing can mean up to $4 in highway reconstruction costs 2 years 
from now.
  The ability of our country to sustain higher productivity is the key 
to economic growth and a higher standard of living.
  Higher productivity is, in part, a function of the public and private 
investment. Recognizing that reality, over 400 of our Nation's leading 
economists have urged Government to increase public investment. They 
urged us to remember that public investment in our people and in our 
infrastructure is essential for economic growth.
  Clearly, the National Highway System program was designed to be part 
of a comprehensive program of public investment.
  However, as much as I support moving this legislation forward, I will 
vote against the NHS bill.
  Provisions in this bill are totally inconsistent with, and as a 
result radically undermine, the goal of increasing investment and 
productivity.
  My concern here is that specific provisions, amendments to this bill, 
undermine safety and will substantially increase human and economic 
costs.
  While one amendment to the bill was excellent and requires States to 
institute zero tolerance laws--that means almost no acceptance of any 
presence of alcohol behind the wheel is accepted. It is .02, very low, 
and that is the way it ought to be. That is very positive. It is a 
proposal that I strongly supported, having been the author or father of 
the 21-age drinking bill and seeing how successful we were over the 
last 10 years. It was a very positive step. It will save lives and 
reduce expenditures. But in total, as a result of this bill, more lives 
will be lost than will be saved.
  Opponents of speed limits and motorcycle helmet laws--which passed 
this body--argue that decisions in these areas should be the 
responsibility of the State. I could not agree more. I want to give 
some decisions to the States that would increase their flexibility in 
using Federal transportation assistance. But I cannot buy into the 
concept that removing speed limits, increasing speeds across our 
Nation's highways and roads, is going to help anything except to create 
mayhem. More people will die and more expenses will be incurred.
  The same thing is true with the helmet laws. To remove helmets is, in 
my view, positively ludicrous. I do not understand what it is that 
motivated this body to say take off your helmets, let the wind blow in 
your hair, and God help you if someone runs over you. I supported the 
concept in ISTEA for flexibility for States and, again, allowing the 
States to use NHS funding to support intercity rail service. This is 
human rights, the right of the individual to be safe. It is the right 
that all of us have not to have to spend money because people do 
foolish things in our society.
  Mr. President, one-third of all traffic accidents are caused by 
excessive 
[[Page S 8880]] speed. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration estimates that total repeal of Federal speed limit 
requirements will increase the number of Americans killed on our 
Nation's highways by about 4,750 persons per year.
  In addition, there will be substantial financial consequences 
associated with a repeal. Death and injuries will increase as a result 
of ending Federal speed limit restrictions. But it is going to cost 
taxpayers $15 billion more each year in lost productivity, taxes, and 
increased health care costs.
  This loss would be on top of the $24 billion we already lose as a 
result of motor vehicle accidents which are caused by excessive speed.
  So, Mr. President, I want to restate that this bill is a $6.5 billion 
investment in our Nation's infrastructure, our highways. But, at the 
same time, we have added an amendment that is going to cost us $15 
billion more over the life of this bill than we are presently spending. 
The total investment for the whole bill is $6.5 billion.
  Mr. President, the same argument applies to the helmet provisions in 
the bill. More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in 
injury or death to the motorcyclist. Head injury is the leading cause 
of death in motorcycle crashes. Now, compared to a helmeted rider, an 
unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury 
and 15 percent more likely to incur a head injury when involved in a 
crash.
  The NHTSA estimates that the use of helmets saved $5.9 billion 
between 1984 and 1982. Now, repeal of mandatory helmet requirements 
will increase the death rate projected for motorcycle riders by 391 
persons per year and will increase the costs to society by $389 million 
each year. And all of us chip in to pay for those expenses.
  The American public supports a strong Federal role in transportation 
safety initiatives because they understand the benefit of mandatory 
helmet and safety belt laws, mandatory 21 drinking age laws, and 
maximum speed limit laws.
  Unfortunately, the Senate has chosen to ignore the majority will and 
the public, and all of the empirical data on the value of 
transportation safety measures.
  As a result, Mr. President, this bill gives with one hand and takes 
away with the other. It authorizes $6.5 billion worth of spending in 
infrastructure investment, while adding almost $15.5 billion in 
additional costs to our society.
  My colleagues recognize this fact as evidenced by the rejection of 
the amendment by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, which would 
have, in effect, required States to directly absorb medical costs 
associated with motorcycle riders who were not wearing helmets and were 
injured in an accident.
  She said, very simply--and I agreed with her and we got lots of 
votes--if a State does not want to take prudent measures to have people 
protect themselves on our highways, they ought to pay for it when 
accidents and expenses are incurred.
  I want the Congress and the country to understand what is at stake in 
that debate--4,900 lives, tens of thousands more injuries each year, 
hundreds of millions of dollars in added health care costs and economic 
opportunities forgone.
  Very simply, this bill takes one step forward but three steps 
backward.
  Mr. President, it pains me to say that I am not going to support this 
bill, because I believed for all of the years that I have been in the 
Senate that we do not invest enough in our highways, bridges, and our 
transportation system, in transit and in intercity rail. So I hate to 
be one of the people who is going to say no to this bill. But as the 
underlying legislation dictates, it says that we are going to take more 
away than we give.
  It is painful to witness what has happened to what was a program 
intended to do our country some good. But when each of the interests 
raised their heads, we wound up taking care of a few at the expense of 
the many, and that is, unfortunately, what happened to the NHS bill 
which so many worked on so diligently for so many years.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 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 am very optimistic that we will reach 
within the next few minutes final passage of this bill, and therefore I 
would like to give some closing remarks.
  As we approach the end of our debate on the designation of the 
National Highway System, I am pleased to have a bill that will keep 
America moving, moving ahead with progress.
  This is a big day. The National Highway System is intact and America 
will move forward with another very important chapter.
  Last year, the Senate, under the able leadership of my colleague, 
Senator Baucus, passed a clean bill, that is, a bill with no 
demonstration projects. Today, and again this year, the Senate has 
spoken likewise--no projects. Let our States direct their funding on 
their own priorities, not those of the Congress.
  Throughout these proceedings, my own goal has been simple: To see 
that this measure moved ahead in a timely manner to meet the deadline 
of September 30, 1995, to ensure the States would receive the $6.5 
billion in National Highway System and interstate maintenance funds 
that they deserve.
  With our actions today, we are well ahead of schedule.
  But, Mr. President, I am concerned. While I applaud our inclusion of 
the zero alcohol tolerance, Mr. President, that noise does not disturb 
me. It is good noise. It is the noise of settlement. I accept it and 
tolerate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will, nonetheless, withhold so it will not 
interfere with the Senator giving his remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may continue, I would like to repeat 
myself. But I am concerned, Mr. President. I say that in all 
seriousness. While I applaud the Senate's inclusion of the ``zero 
alcohol tolerance'' for minors, I am concerned that the safety, which I 
strongly support, of the public may be placed in jeopardy as a result 
of the amendments to this bill; namely, the lifting of the Federal law 
on speed limits and opening the door for dual speed limits on trucks 
and automobiles.
  States rights, a clarion call that I almost invariably support, 
prevailed throughout the debate on this bill. But the wisdom of 
experience failed to prevail. Experience has clearly demonstrated that 
uniform national speed limits reduce the daily tragic losses of life 
and limb and economic resources on our highways.
  Likewise, experience has demonstrated that different speed limits for 
trucks and cars contribute to highway accidents. Our future, our fate 
now rests with the State legislators, not the Federal Government. 
States rights now means States responsibilities, as well as the burdens 
now on the individual States. Legislators of those States are now on 
the firing line. I urge them in the name of safety to hold the line. 
Speed can be as intoxicating as alcohol.
  A future Congress, when ISTEA is reauthorized in 1997, will closely 
examine the results of our actions on this bill. I would hate to see 
the Congress once again on a roller coaster, enacting and repealing and 
enacting and then repealing these laws as the constant lobbying between 
the Congress and the States drives these legislative initiatives.
  Mr. President, I would like to commend and thank the chairman of our 
committee, Senator Chafee, as well as the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Baucus. They are both splendid working partners, and Senator 
Baucus has helped immeasurably as a full partner and as a manager with 
this Senator in seeing that this bill will be adopted.
  With their strong support, this bill moved promptly through the 
committee to the floor. Their cooperation and skill may soon help me to 
complete action on this bill.
  My colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee have also 
my great respect and appreciation for their commitment and their hard 
work.
  I would also like to thank a very able professional staff for their 
efforts. From the beginning of our work to designate the National 
Highway System [[Page S 8881]] there has been a great deal of 
cooperation on both sides of the aisle. So I thank Jean Lauver, Ann 
Loomis, Linda Jordan, Larry Dwyer, Ellen Stein, Tom Sliter, Kathy 
Ruffalo, Alex Washburn, and the one and only Steve Shimberg, staff 
director.
  Mr. President, the National Highway System will, indeed, keep America 
moving toward our next generation of transportation challenges. For 
these reasons, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to vote for 
passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is nearing 
completion of S. 440, the National Highway System Destination Act of 
1995. And I want to thank all my colleagues for their cooperation on 
this legislation. The passage of this legislation brings us a big step 
closer to the deadline we must meet of September 30, if we are to 
receive a very substantial distribution of some $6.5 billion--that is 
``b'' for ``billion''--of needed highway funds.
  And I want to commend the manager of the bill, the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, Senator Warner, for the 
wonderful job that he has done during the consideration of this 
legislation. He worked diligently to develop it and to secure the 
committee's approval by a vote of 15-1.
  I also want to thank Senator Baucus as a member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, who is also ranking member of this 
subcommittee, for the excellent work that he has done on this bill. He 
has been very cooperative in moving it forward. In fact, he provided 
the leadership in beginning this process, as mentioned by Senator 
Warner, in that Senator Baucus last year brought this legislation to 
the floor of the Senate. It passed, but unfortunately we were unable to 
reach an agreement with the House before Congress adjourned.
  So I am pleased the Senate has approved the National Highway System 
as the Secretary of Transportation and the local and State officials 
presented it to us. I think this underlines the fact that the process 
to designate this system has worked well and resulted in a high degree 
of consensus among Federal and State and local officials.
  Under this bill the cooperative process will continue. State and 
local officials, with the Secretary of Transportation's approval, will 
have the ability to continue to make changes in the National Highway 
System as long as the total mileage of 165,000 miles is not exceeded. 
This is a dynamic entity with which we are involved.
  This legislation preserves the important principles that the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the so-called 
ISTEA legislation, put in place, emphasizing flexibility. I regret that 
we were not able to provide the States more flexibility with respect to 
the Davis-Bacon provisions. As you know, it emerged from the committee 
with a revocation of the Davis-Bacon language as it pertained to 
highway construction. That was removed on the floor of the Senate due 
to the presence of a filibuster on that item. I hope we will be able to 
deal with this Davis-Bacon situation in the future.
  I deeply regret that this legislation, in my judgment, represents a 
giant step backward in a particular area; that is, highway safety. I am 
extremely disappointed that the Senate made the decision to repeal the 
Federal speed limit as it pertains to automobiles. It was maintained as 
to trucks. That was a half a victory. As to automobiles, it was not 
maintained. And as for the motorcycle helmet requirements, they were 
repealed. Again, it was half a victory, if you would, or half a loss, 
in that of the two items, seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, the 
seatbelts were retained and the motorcycle helmet provision was 
repealed.
  I think that is a bad decision and will result in extremely 
unfortunate consequences. I believe lives will be lost that could have 
been preserved otherwise. I believe there will be more serious injuries 
that could have been avoided. And I believe the cost to Federal and 
State governments will go up. But that is life. We had a long debate on 
it. There is no question that the will of the Senate was expressed. 
Nothing went through in the dark of night on that one. Everybody knew 
the issues and a vote was held. The vote was very, very clear to repeal 
the helmet provision.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of 
Transportation, Mr. Pena, and Mr. Rodney Slater, the Administrator of 
the Federal Highway System. They did a splendid job in working with the 
States to develop this whole system. The system was adopted by the 
Senate as was proposed, as it came up to us. That is a testimony to the 
effective job that was done by the States and the Federal officials, 
particularly Mr. Slater, who has been very helpful to us not only 
during the designation of the National Highway System, but in the 
consideration of this measure on the floor, and his Deputy 
Administrator, Jane Garvey, and their staff. The staff they have was 
working with us over the past several days.
  Finally, I want to join in thanks to the staff who worked on this 
legislation. On our side, Steve Shimberg, Jean Lauver, Ann Loomis, 
Linda Jordan, and Larry Dwyer. And for the Democratic side, Tom Sliter, 
Kathy Ruffalo, and Alice Washburn. All have been absolutely splendid. 
There is no question we rely to a great degree on them, because we have 
confidence in them built up over the years.
  So I want to thank the Chair and thank all my colleagues for their 
assistance in this measure.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today the Senate is finally 
about to pass S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995. I want to thank particularly the chairman, Senator Chafee, for 
his outstanding leadership, and also Senator Warner, the chairman of 
the subcommittee, who has done an excellent job shepherding this bill 
to this point.
  This is a critical bill for our States. Billions of dollars in 
highway funds are at stake. We need to enact this bill, and I remind my 
colleagues, by September 30; that is, passed by both Houses and signed 
into law. Otherwise, the State highway programs will be seriously 
disrupted.
  I hope the House will take this bill up soon so we can resolve our 
differences and get a bill to the President by that deadline.
  The National Highway System is the backbone of our transportation 
system today and the framework for its growth in the 21st century. The 
NHS is designed to have a seamless transportation network of roads that 
link all modes of transportation between airports, seaports, and rail 
yards with our population and economic centers. It will make our 
businesses more competitive in our global economy. And by choosing the 
most important roads, it will help States to determine the most 
appropriate transportation investments.
  That is particularly true in the rural West, like Montana, where 
highways are often the only mode of transportation. Whether it is in 
the transporting of goods and services, traveling for family vacations, 
business, or taking our kids to college, our highways always play a 
vital role in our lives and our jobs. We do not have the mass transit 
or water transportation systems like other States have. So highways are 
critical to the lifeblood of our State's economy, which increasingly 
depends on travel and tourism, and it is our way of life.
  The bill includes nearly 4,000 miles of roads in Montana. That is 23 
percent or about 800 miles more than the Bush administration's original 
proposal. The additional routes include Highway 200 between Great Falls 
and Missoula, and from Lewistown going west to Winnett, Jordan, Circle, 
Sidney, and Fairview. Highway 12 from Helena to Garrison Junction; 
Highway 59 from Miles City to Broadus; Highway 87 between Billings, 
Roundup, and Grassrange; and Highway 212 from Crow Agency to Lame Deer 
and Alzada.
  That is good news for Montana. And the other roads in the bill mean 
just as much for the entire region across the Great Plains and down the 
Rocky Mountains. All these roads are included in the bill the Senate is 
considering today.
  Mr. President, this bill also makes major reforms by lessening the 
regulatory burdens on our States, giving [[Page S 8882]] them more 
flexibility. It allows States to set their own speed limits for 
passenger cars and also repeals Federal mandates on motorcycle helmets, 
management systems, use of the metrics on highway signs, and crumb 
rubber. These are all good changes.
  As I said before, this bill is not only in our State's interest, but 
in our national interest. It means jobs; it means growth. So I 
congratulate the chairmen of our committee and subcommittee for their 
leadership, for their diligence, and for their extreme patience in 
managing this bill. And I particularly want to thank the staffs on both 
sides, particularly on the minority side, Tom Sliter and Kathy Ruffalo, 
who have done a wonderful job; and on the majority side, Jean Lauver 
and Ann Loomis, who have done an equally good job.
  Particularly at this point, Mr. President, I want to thank the 
Federal Highway Administrator, Rodney Slater. He has been here. He has 
been in the wings helping advise us. There were technical problems we 
had as amendments came up. Jane Garvey, who is the Deputy 
Administrator, has been just very valuable, along with other FHA staff, 
and I must say that were it not for their expertise, this legislation 
would be in pretty rough shape. Again, I thank all concerned, and again 
particularly the chairman, and the subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Warner. They have done a great job.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. 
I join him in acknowledging the positive, constructive contribution of 
the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Indeed, he has 
been here keeping watch, and any Senator could speak with him at any 
time. He has done an excellent job, a very, very commendable job for 
this Nation.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1466

 (Purpose: To permit States to use assistance provided under the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund for capital improvements to, 
      and operating support for, intercity passenger rail service)

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

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1466.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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  . INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FROM MASS 
                   TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       Section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Intercity Rail Infrastructure Investment.--Any 
     assistance provided to a State that does not have Amtrak 
     service as of date of enactment of this Act from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund may be used for 
     capital improvements to, and operating support for, intercity 
     passenger rail service.''.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I wish to thank my colleagues, 
Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, as well as Senator D'Amato and 
Senator Sarbanes, for their supporting this amendment and cooperating 
with us in the drafting of this amendment.
  This amendment, basically, would allow States to use their mass 
transit funds to subsidize Amtrak. Many States, as you know, have had 
reductions in Amtrak. There happen to be 3 States in the lower 48 that 
do not have Amtrak. We have narrowed this amendment to apply to those 
three States that do not have Amtrak where they could use mass transit 
funds to subsidize Amtrak acquisition.
  I am pleased this amendment is supported. This will help us in our 
State to regain Amtrak. We are the only State in the Nation that has 
had Amtrak and lost it. It will allow us to use mass transit--we only 
receive $3 million now, we contribute $30 million but only get $3 
million back--this will allow us to use part of that money to subsidize 
Amtrak and bring about the day when we have restoration of Amtrak in my 
State.
  I wish to compliment my colleagues for management of this bill. They 
have shown great patience and forbearance. A lot had different ideas.
  I introduced legislation some time ago to allow the States to set 
speed limits, thereby repealing the Federal national speed limit. That 
was adopted by this body. I think it is a giant step in the right 
direction. I am pleased it is part of this package. I look forward to 
the final action and completion of this bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the substance of this amendment is, 
frankly, not within the jurisdiction of this committee. Rather, it is 
in the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I have been in contact 
with Senator Sarbanes, who is the ranking member of the Banking 
Committee. I have been assured he agrees with this amendment and has no 
problem with it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1466) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, many commendations have been paid to the 
managers of the bill. I also would like to pay a commendation to the 
distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader who have given 
us full, complete support and, indeed, has shown great patience and 
indulgence in the last hour and a half as we bring this matter to a 
close.
  Mr. President, there is one remaining matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join in saying we are happy the highway 
bill is being passed. As one who has a very pressing problem, I know 
this bill presents an opportunity to raise an issue and have it decided 
by the Congress and have it to the President next week. I see nothing 
wrong with that. That is part of the history of the Senate. In a few 
minutes, we may work out a situation--or we will postpone the 
decision--but we cannot work it out now and, as far as I am concerned, 
we will stay on this bill until we can get a decision from the Senate 
as to whether we are right about this issue.
  So let me respond to my friend from Rhode Island--and he is my 
friend--Senator Chafee and I stood behind one another in the line going 
into law school more than 50 years ago, Mr. President, so we know each 
other very well.
  We do have some differences. I have heard my friend talk about the 
fact that there is a limit of 165,000 miles in the Interstate Highway 
System. How would you like to be from a State one-fifth the size of the 
United States and have a thousand of those miles, Mr. President, and 
have the post office keep telling you, ``You have to find some way to 
deliver the mail up here, we can't pay the subsidy for flying mail?'' 
Then you find that Federal agencies are denying you the right to use 
rights-of-way across Federal lands that were developed by the miners in 
1866 and have been used since that time.
  What happened? In 1976, we decided that we would repeal revised 
statute 2477, which provided every State in the West the right to use 
established, public rights-of-way across Federal lands as continued 
rights-of-way for use by the public. They became the basis for the 
State highways, the Federal highways and the interstate highways in 
what we call the south 48.
  Has that happened in Alaska? No. Why? Because of arrogant 
bureaucrats.
  In 1976, we passed a law which absolutely stated, without any 
question, that the action of Congress in repealing the revised statute 
2477 would not affect our rights-of-way that had been established prior 
to 1976. That law said in section 701(a), which was signed on October 
21, 1976:

       Nothing in this act or in any amendment made by this act 
     shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, 
     patent, right- [[Page S 8883]] of-way or other land use right 
     or authorization existing on the date of approval of this 
     act.

  We interpreted that in past Congresses and past administrations have 
interpreted that to mean that the rights-of-way that were established 
pursuant to State law before 1976 were valid, if the State determined 
they were valid.
  As a matter of fact, there have been specific holdings by the Federal 
courts of appeals, particularly the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
that those rights-of-way were to be established and determined on the 
basis of State law.
  Now the Department of the Interior says, ``Oh, wait a minute now, we 
have established since 1976 a whole series of wilderness areas, and in 
those wilderness areas are some of these rights-of-way which, in fact, 
access privately held lands, Native-held lands, and State-held lands in 
our State. Other States have similar problems.
  I want to point out, Utah has the greatest problem of all the Western 
States as far as the Bureau of Land Management is concerned. The last 
schedule I saw showed they had 3,815 claims pending to be validated. 
Validated by whom? There is no administrative process required to 
validate these claims. Now the Department of the Interior says they are 
going to determine whether these rights-of-way are valid. This is not 
what we said in 1976. If they were valid in 1976 under State law, they 
were to be valid forever.
  The language was very simple--very simple. Congress said in 1866:

       The right-of-way for the construction of highways over 
     public lands not reserved for public uses is hereby granted.

  That became revised statute 2477. It was part of the original highway 
act of the United States. The managers of the bill are saying, ``What 
are you doing out on the floor raising this now?'' This is part of the 
highway system. The highway system in the western United States came 
into being because of revised statute 2477. And now in my State, 
unfortunately in other States now, the Department of the Interior has 
decided it is going to determine what is valid, and why? Because it has 
made reservations of lands since 1976 that it says have validity and 
have prior rights over the rights established by the people of those 
States over Federal lands before that date.
  This to me is not a simple issue. My distinguished friend, Senator 
Murkowski, the other Senator from Alaska, is here and he knows just how 
important this is. It is a matter that we both have tried to figure out 
what to do with.
  We have no way to have construction of the highways proceed that we 
get money for under this bill if the Department of the Interior is to 
tell us that the rights-of-way we are going to use now are subject to 
their interpretation of whether they are valid or not.
  To me it is a simple matter of States rights. But it goes beyond 
States rights. It is the incessant determination of people downtown to 
try to reverse a decision that the Congress made in 1958 when it 
allowed Alaska to become a State. If we are a State, we should have the 
same rights as the other States did under this statute, and in 1976 we 
preserved that. I helped work on that section. We wanted to make sure 
we had the rights that were there. We knew we were not going to 
establish any new rights across Federal lands after that time, but 
certainly the rights we had established prior to that time were valid 
pursuant to State law, and there is no question that they continue to 
be the basic right for the expansion of the highway system in Alaska 
and other western States.
  Someone said to me once, ``Why do you worry about that? Is there that 
much Federal land out there?'' I just wish more people would come up 
and see the amount of Federal land we have in Alaska. You cannot get 
anywhere in Alaska without crossing Federal land.
 The Federal Government controls access to almost every piece of land 
that is in private, State, or Native ownership in Alaska.

  Now, I do believe that there is no question about it that there are a 
lot of forces out there which, if they had their way now, would reverse 
statehood. They would take away from us the right to be a State. Not 
having that ability, what they do is take away from us the right to 
have the same access to our land mass that other States in the lower 48 
have had.
  The Interior Department has now come up with some very narrow terms 
to define ``highways'' for the purpose of revised statute 2477. That is 
none of their business. Our rights existed in 1976 or they do not exist 
at all today. But if they existed in 1976, no Secretary of the Interior 
is going to tell me what those rights were or what they are going to 
allow us to claim today. We had the right in 1976 and he has no 
business being involved in this.
  I know that there are very powerful groups in this country that would 
like to find ways to invalidate those claims. And in the past these 
groups have taken the claims to court. These groups have lost, because 
a right established prior to 1976 for public access across Federal 
lands continues to be our right.
  Alaska law defines highways in terms of roads, streets, trails, 
walkways, bridges, tunnels, drainage structures, ferry systems, and 
other related facilities. Obviously, nobody is going to get in our way 
on ferry systems. We have the right to navigable waters.
  Protection of the RS 2477 grant of right-of-way is essential to the 
preservation of statehood for my State. And it is one of the reasons 
that I come to this floor at times just a little bit excited, because I 
do not believe many people take much time to learn much about our 
State. You crisscross the continental United States, but not many of 
you even come to our State. When you do, we welcome you, we are pleased 
to have you. But you do not take much time to learn some of the 
problems that exist there. Our problem is transportation, 
transportation, transportation. We have to have access to our lands.
  There is one other item I will mention to the Senate. When we were 
seeking statehood, we first sought 30, 40 million acres of land. 
Congress at that time kept saying: But you cannot survive as a State 
unless you have more land. You have to have a land base in order to 
survive. So we ended up by getting the right to use 103.5 million acres 
of Federal lands as State lands.
  Mr. President, having received the right to select 103.5 million 
acres of the Federal domain in Alaska, we proceeded to do that. Our 
rights pertain to Federal lands that were vacant, unreserved, and 
unappropriated as of 1959. A subsequent Congress decided that there 
ought to be a limitation on our rights. So we had a process which 
lasted about 7 years and led to the enactment of a law in 1980, the 
Alaska National Interest Land Claims Act, which withdrew a substantial 
amount of lands that were vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved in 
1959. In effect, they took away from us the right to select a portion 
of the lands that we originally had the right to consider in exercising 
rights under the Statehood Act. Similarly, the Alaska Natives received 
some 40-plus million acres in settlement of their historic claims 
against the United States, and some of those lands were to be taken 
from vacant unappropriated, unreserved lands. And they also were faced 
with the prospect of having to select lands that were not reserved, 
because the Congress had reserved lands.
  We ended up by selecting lands that were less valuable, did not 
contain minerals, and were not timbered. Most of the valuable lands of 
Alaska was set aside and not available to either the State or the 
Natives, as originally intended. That is going to lead, in my opinion, 
to a historic lawsuit by my State against the Federal Government. I am 
informed we must complete our land selections before we can bring that 
case. But I do think it is a valid case against the United States. And 
the perpetrators of the wrong were right here on the floor of the 
Senate. Some of them continue to be here, Mr. President. Some Members 
of the Senate continue to try to deny Alaska access to the lands that 
Congress gave us a right to when we became a State, in order to try and 
support the new State.
  Now, we come down to 1976 when we decided to repeal revised statute 
2477. Mr. President, without that law, the West would never have been 
settled. Without that law, we would not have the Interstate Highway 
System. Without that law, we would not really have the unity we have as 
a nation.
  Now, it is sad, in my opinion, to see this penchant of some members 
of our society to deny our new State the same rights, to say that we 
have no right to [[Page S 8884]] establish a network of highways in our 
State. As I said, we have one major highway in our State. It is the 
system that connects Alaska to Canada. It goes from Seward, AK, up to 
Fairbanks, and out to the border.
  I see the leader here. I will yield.
  Mr. DOLE. I wonder if we can move on to the next bill and not, in any 
way, undercut any of the rights of any of the Senators. As soon as you 
get the language and agreement, we can come back to this bill. In the 
meantime, let us go ahead and start the other bill, the securities 
litigation bill. And then, hopefully, you will have the language. The 
first vote would be on this, back-to-back with final passage of this 
bill, plus the amendment on litigation.
  Mr. STEVENS. I might say to my friend, we had an agreement last night 
that I would have the opportunity to offer an amendment to this bill. 
Now there has been a suggestion that we have an amendment that is being 
reviewed by the Senator from Arkansas, as I understand it. That would 
delay the urgency of this amendment of mine. I am happy to agree to 
cooperate with our leader at any time. I would not want to see us be 
put in the position that we are limited as to what we might do when we 
get back on this bill.
  Mr. DOLE. I assume, in talking with Senator Bumpers, it is something 
everybody can agree on. You can offer the amendment when we bring the 
bill up. If it is not satisfactory, you can do what you want. In the 
meantime, we can go ahead with the litigation bill. When you have it 
worked out----
  Mr. STEVENS. There may be more amendments before we are through.
  Mr. DOLE. Well, amendment or amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. Under the circumstances, I am happy to continue my 
comments at a later time, if the leader wishes to go on the other bill 
at this time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, it is 
my understanding that the amendment has been agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was this Senator's understanding, too, but that is 
not the case.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are currently waiting to hear from 
Senator Bumpers with regard to the pending agreement. I assume that he 
will be forthcoming.
  Mr. STEVENS. If my colleague will yield, we have not been able to 
check that out with the Senator from Utah because we have not seen the 
final version that is agreeable to Senator Bumpers yet.
  The leader is right. There is nothing we can move ahead on now. That 
is why this Senator is venting a little air, to try to make people 
understand why we feel so strongly about this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder, Mr. President, if the majority leader will 
yield, if we can wait maybe 1 minute here. There is a possibility we 
can get this cleared right now.
  Mr. DOLE. Then it has to be reviewed by the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If we could just withhold for a few more minutes? Maybe 
the other Senator from Alaska could speak for just a few more minutes. 
We are just that close to getting this thing wrapped up. I would want 
to do it now rather than later.
  Mr. DOLE. We were going to move on to something else at 3:30. Now it 
is 4:30. I would like to finish the bill. I know the managers would. 
They have done an excellent job. I certainly want to accommodate the 
Senators from Alaska. I understood the Senator from Arkansas, Senator 
Bumpers, thought he had a satisfactory resolution.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will again yield, it is my 
understanding Senator Bumpers has not yet personally seen the language 
and he does want to see it.
  Mr. DOLE. That could take a while and we could be halfway down the 
trail on the litigation bill. As soon as it is worked out, we will come 
right back and finish it. I am not going to lay it aside for a day or 
even an hour. We will come back, finish it, get the yeas and nays on 
final passage and have that vote occur along with the first vote on any 
amendment on the litigation bill. Is that right?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could inquire of the 
manager and the leader, if, indeed, it is set aside and not taken up 
for a time, if Senator Stevens and I may have a time to be recognized 
at that time certain, right after the leader calls up the bill? I 
wonder if the leader could indicate when he intends to do that?
  Mr. DOLE. I think what we would do is make certain you have agreed or 
disagreed on whatever has been offered. Both Alaska Senators are on the 
floor, obviously, and the Senator from Utah----
  Mr. STEVENS. If I may interrupt, the Senator from Utah has as great a 
stake or greater in the immediate outcome. We have been willing to 
clear this with them, but we have not been able to get an agreed 
version yet on this tentative moratorium.
  Will the leader yield to the Senator from Utah so he might get 
involved in this, Mr. Leader?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have just had a quick opportunity to review this. 
Clearly I will want to talk to my senior colleague, Senator Hatch. But 
my first reaction to this is that this would be agreeable. It would 
delay the implementation, as I understand it, of the present rules 
until December and give us that much more time to try to work things 
out with the Department of the Interior.
  Our Governor made it clear to Secretary Babbitt that the proposals, 
as they currently stand, are not acceptable and cannot be fixed. We 
have to start completely from scratch. So that is the position we have 
taken and I take on behalf of the Governor.
  But I obviously want to check with Senator Hatch before I give a 
final signoff on this issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, does the leader still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I think from what I see developing here, it is just going 
to take a little time. I think it can be worked out. But if we need to 
contact the senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and the Senator 
from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, I know that is not going to happen in 2 
minutes or 5 minutes or 30 minutes. In the meantime, we could be 
started on the litigation bill. Then, as soon as you get the agreement, 
we can come back to this bill, wrap it up, and have a vote on final 
passage.
  Mr. STEVENS. The question is, if we do not get the agreement, do we 
have the understanding this will come back and be the regular order 
after we finish the securities bill?
  Mr. DOLE. That is right.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would have no objection to that proceeding.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Then, if I could ask the leader again, roughly, he 
anticipates being back on the securities bill on Monday?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes. We hope to finish the bill tomorrow night. If not, we 
will be on it Monday. But we could finish this bill, the present bill, 
before then, in particular if we get an agreement.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if the leader gets an agreement, then 
it is my understanding that he will potentially come back to this bill, 
the highway bill, at which time we would be recognized and pursue our 
amendments with no time limitation and try to resolve the differences 
that we currently have been unable to clear. Then there would be final 
passage. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOLE. But if you can reach agreement with all parties and it can 
be done very quickly, we will do it at any time you get the agreement, 
like 30 minutes from now or an hour from now or 2 hours from now.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we should know very soon.
  Mr. DOLE. Right. That is what they told me at 3:30. Let me get the 
consent. There will be one additional amendment here and then we will 
go on.
  Let me ask unanimous consent that the Senate, after adoption of the 
managers' amendment, turn to the consideration of Calendar 128, S. 240, 
the securities litigation bill, and that no call for the regular order 
bring back S. 440 except one call by the majority leader after 
consultation with the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I further ask, when the Senate resumes S. 440, the only 
amendments remaining in order to the committee substitute be the 
following: They are going to offer the managers' amendment, and then 
the only following amendment would be the Stevens-Murkowski amendment 
or amendments. And that would also include the [[Page S 8885]] Senators 
from Utah, Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall 
not. We also have an understanding that the closing statements of the 
managers appear in the Record as the last.
  Mr. DOLE. I did get consent you could offer the managers' amendment 
right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1464, as Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical amendment 
to be added to the managers' amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Has the agreement been entered into?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it has. Without objection, the agreement 
is entered into.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment which 
includes the State of Maine as covered by the amendment of the Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  I ask that it be accepted. It is to a previously agreed to amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1464 is 
modified and is agreed to in that form.
  The amendment (No. 1464), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  .

       The State of New Hampshire and the State of Maine shall be 
     deemed as having met the safety belt use law requirements of 
     section 153 of title 23 of the U.S. Code, upon certification 
     by the Secretary of Transportation that the State has 
     achieved--
       (a) a safety belt use rate in each of fiscal years ending 
     September 30, 1995 and September 30, 1996, of not less than 
     50 percent; and
       (b) a safety belt use rate in each succeeding fiscal year 
     thereafter of not less than the national average safety belt 
     use rate, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.

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

                          ____________________