[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17203-S17227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the conference on 
the National Highway System bill has reached agreement on the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. I am prepared to move to that 
now.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the conference 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 
     440) to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
     the designation of the National Highway System, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senate will proceed 
to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of November 15, 1995.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the chairman of the conference was the 
distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. He is the 
chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee that deals with these particular highway matters.
  Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for his very able 
leadership of this conference. Senator Warner demonstrated patience and 
persistence and thoroughness and did a superb job. So I think we are 
all in Senator Warner's debt for the outstanding job he did.
  I also wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. 
Baucus], who is the ranking member of both the entire committee, that 
is, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and also the ranking 
member of the subcommittee that dealt with this matter. He played a 
vital role in working out this conference agreement.
  I also want to thank the other conferees from our committee; namely, 

[[Page S17204]]
  Senators Smith and Kempthorne, Moynihan, and Reid, for their 
contributions. Because of what they did, we were able to make the 
progress that is represented by the conference report, which, by the 
way, emerged from the Environment Committee--the original bill--with a 
16-to-nothing vote. Mr. Rodney Slater, Administrator of the Federal 
Highway Administration, has been very helpful, as was the Secretary of 
Transportation, Mr. Federico Pena.
  The result of the conference on the National Highway System 
legislation is a compromise, and I know that there will be comments 
today about dissatisfaction with certain portions of the report, 
particularly those dealing with the safety aspects. But nonetheless, 
like all conferences, they are a compromise. We moved ahead in allowing 
something over $6 billion in highway funds to now be released to the 
States.

  The purpose of this legislation is to approve the National Highway 
System which is a network of approximately 160,000 miles of highway in 
our Nation. The States and localities have chosen these roads as some 
of their most important ones. The National Highway System represents 
only 4 percent of the highways in the United States of America but on 
those 4 percent of the highways 40 percent of the Nation's traveling is 
done. In other words, these 4 percent of the roads handle 40 percent of 
the total vehicle miles traveled in our country. These roads connect 
strategic facilities including our ports, airports, train stations, and 
military bases. The process to designate the NHS worked well. It is a 
cooperative process that produced a high degree of consensus among 
Federal, State, and local officials.
  The conference agreement approves the map as submitted by the 
Secretary and recognizes that this is a changing, dynamic process. And 
so there will be other changes in the future as State and local 
officials work with the Secretary of Transportation. The conference 
agreement preserves the important principles of flexibility that came 
from the basic highway act that we have which was passed in 1991, 
called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, with the 
pleasing acronym of ISTEA.
  In this legislation we passed, paperwork and regulatory burdens have 
been reduced, additional flexibility has been provided including 
management systems; metric signing requirements; implementing the 
transportation enhancement program; designing highways to allow for the 
preservation of environmental and scenic values; the use of Federal-aid 
funds for preventive maintenance; and the use of Federal-aid funds for 
roads that provide connections to intermodal facilities.
  What is an intermodel facility? It is a facility that has surface 
transportation, air transportation, and sea transportation, all blended 
together and from that some goods move by truck, some move by rail, 
some move by sea.
  Specifically regarding what is called design standards, I believe 
this provision provides significant new flexibility for the States and 
new opportunities for public participation. I hope that the Secretary 
will, in the development of design criteria, make every effort to 
ensure the full participation of organizations and individuals 
representing scenic, aesthetic, community, environmental, historic, 
bicycle, and pedestrian interests. I urge the Secretary of 
Transportation to make certain that State and local transportation 
officials are aware of this new flexibility that is provided so that 
they can take full advantage of it.
  This legislation also provides the States with additional financing 
options to address the needs of the transportation system recognizing 
that the Federal, State, and local governments' resources are limited.
  This conference report includes provisions that address problems that 
have occurred in the implementation of the Clean Air Act.
  One of the most effective measures to reduce air pollution is 
inspection of the vehicle that are already on the road to make sure 
that the pollution control equipment on the vehicle is working 
properly. This vehicle testing program is called inspection and 
maintenance in the Clean Air Act. Many Americans are familiar with this 
program because they are required to take the family car to the service 
station or repair shop once a year to get an emissions inspection. 
Inspection and maintenance of existing vehicles is now required in more 
than 60 major urban areas across the country.
  The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act directed EPA to develop an 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program to be carried out 
in the cities with the worst air pollution problems. Congress mandated 
that the existing testing programs in these areas be upgraded to get 
even greater pollution reduction.
  EPA issued regulations to implement this part of the 1990 law in 
November 1992. However, those regulations went farther than Congress 
had expected or intended. The regulations required that testing be done 
with expensive, new technology called I/M240. Furthermore, the 
regulations imposed a penalty on testing programs that used service 
stations or automobile dealerships or other auto repair facilities to 
conduct the tests.
  In the past, vehicle inspection and maintenance in most States has 
been carried out through a decentralized network of service stations 
and repair shops. But these new EPA rules virtually precluded a 
continuation of that approach. The testing technology is too expensive 
for most service stations to afford. Any any program based on a so-
called test-and-repair system faced an automatic 50-percent penalty in 
the emissions reduction credits EPA would allow.
  The States have aggressively resisted these EPA regulations for 
enhanced programs. Many States have refused to implement it. Other 
States that initially tried to implement the program are now pulling 
back. Earlier this week the Governors of five of these States--
California, Texas, Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania--wrote to the 
majority leader of the Senate and asked for legislative relief from 
these EPA regulations.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
Governors be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am pleased to say that the conference report now before 
the Senate makes the specific changes in the inspection and maintenance 
program that the Governors recommend. First, the bill prevents EPA from 
requiring any State to use the expensive testing technology.
  Second, EPA is barred from applying an automatic 50-percent discount 
to the decentralized, test-and-repair programs that some States have 
adopted.
  And third, the bill allows States to develop innovative programs 
based on their own estimates of the emissions reductions that will 
result. As the Governors suggest, the conference report allows these 
innovative approaches to be put into effect on an interim basis to 
determine whether they work. If they do, the States can get permanent 
approval. If not, States will be required to make adjustments to assure 
that the emissions reductions needed to reach health standards will be 
achieved. This conference report gives the States a green light to 
develop programs that will work for their citizens. But it also 
requires that the States prove that the programs are working before 
permanent approval is granted.
  This conference report addresses all of the issues raised by the 
Governors in their letter. We have discussed this legislation with EPA 
and based on those discussions, we are confident that these changes to 
the program are workable and will provide a sound-basis for enhanced 
inspection and maintenance programs.
  This legislation resolves the problems with inspection and 
maintenance that the States have raised and should move us rapidly to 
the day when vehicle testing is an even more effective way to reduce 
air pollution in the Nation's urban areas.
  I am pleased that this legislation continues the ban on new 
billboards on scenic byways. The conference agreement codifies the 
Department of Transportation's implementation of the law which 
prohibits new billboards on scenic byways in scenic areas.
  Consistent with Congress' intent in passing ISTEA, the Department of 

[[Page S17205]]
  Transportation has prohibited new billboard construction along scenic 
byways on the interstate and primary systems. In some unusual 
circumstances, a scenic byway may pass through a heavily industrial or 
commercial area which does not possess any scenic, cultural, 
historical, natural, archaeological, or recreational characteristics. 
In such cases, the Secretary may continue to permit the States to 
segment those areas out of the designation and to allow new billboards 
in those undesignated areas.
  Where segments are proposed for exclusion, the Secretary has the 
responsibility to examine these exclusions to ensure that exclusions 
are, in fact, made on a reasonable basis.
  The Secretary of Transportation continues to have the authority to 
prevent the circumvention of the requirements of section 131(s) and 
section 1047 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991.
  The Secretary has used his authority and intervened in the past when 
States have proposed actions that evade the Federal law banning 
billboards on scenic byways. The Secretary continues to have this 
authority and has the responsibility to exercise it in those cases 
where the States are not complying with the billboard ban on scenic 
byways. The Secretary's authority is described in a legal memorandum 
from the deputy chief counsel to the Federal Highway Administrator. I 
ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. I regret that this legislation repeals several Federal 
safety requirements, including the speed limit and the motorcycle 
helmet requirement and weakens certain truck safety requirements.
  Why did that come about? It came about because we had votes in the 
Chamber of this Senate by some substantial majorities. The body spoke 
and said they wanted these safety requirements in the hands of the 
States rather than in the Federal Government--the speed limits on the 
highways, the requirement that we presently have that motorcyclists 
wear helmets or that the States will lose some funds. All of that has 
been turned back to the States. And so now they are responsible for the 
health and safety of the public traveling on our transportation system. 
I certainly hope that the States will exercise extreme caution when 
using these new authorities.
  The conference agreement directs the Department of Transportation to 
collect data and report to Congress regarding the costs of deaths and 
injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes in those States that 
raise the speed limit or change their motorcycle helmet laws. The 
Department of Transportation collects important safety data and it is 
more important than ever that this data is collected and analyzed so 
that information is available to determine the impact of the repeal of 
the Federal speed limit and motorcycle helmet laws.
  The Federal safety laws were repealed on the basis of State's rights. 
I am certain that State officials are concerned for the safety of the 
residents of their States. I hope the States that have good safety laws 
will keep them, and that those who do not will pass effective safety 
laws recognizing the tremendous benefits of these laws in saving lives 
and reducing costs.
  Finally, I very much regret that we were not able to include the 
Senate provision which passed by an overwhelming vote of 64 to 36 
regarding Amtrak. The NHS bill passed by the Senate would have 
permitted Governors to use some of their highway money for Amtrak if 
they desired to do so. It was completely voluntary and would have given 
the Governors additional flexibility to sue their transportation funds 
within their own States on Amtrak service. Millions of people around 
the country rely on the transportation service that Amtrak provides. I 
believe the flexibility that the Senate provision provided should have 
been given to the Governors and would have benefited our country's 
transportation system.
  Mr. President, Senator Warner will be managing this bill with me. He 
has done such a splendid job in connection with this legislation. So I 
would like to turn the podium over to Senator Warner at this time.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                November 13, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: We are writing to respectfully request 
     your assistance on a matter of great importance to our 
     States--the implementation of the Clean Air Act. We agree 
     that all Americans want and deserve clean air and that the 
     goals of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are commendable. 
     Unfortunately, EPA's implementation of the Act has been 
     particularly burdensome to our States, especially in the area 
     of inspection and maintenance (I/M). Without legislative 
     changes by the Congress in this area, our States will be 
     faced with sanctions, including the withholding of highway 
     money, over the course of the next year to year and a half.
       EPA has a bias in favor of bureaucratic test-only programs 
     in granting only 50 percent credit for test-and-repair I/M 
     programs. Rather than encouraging States to develop 
     innovative, creative and effective I/M programs, EPA is 
     forcing States into a one-size-fits-all-program by virtue of 
     its arbitrary 50 percent reduction in emissions credit for 
     test-and-repair programs. States need the flexibility to 
     design effective I/M programs that meets the unique needs of 
     their citizens while meeting the goals of improved air 
     quality. The federal government should set the goals; the 
     States should have the flexibility to meet those goals in a 
     way that makes sense for their citizens.
       Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that the congressional 
     authorizing committees will have enough time this session to 
     complete action on legislation addressing implementation 
     problems with the Clean Air Act. Because our States face the 
     threat of sanctions by the end of next year, it is critical 
     that Congress address the I/M issue this session on any 
     appropriate legislative vehicle.
       Specifically, our States support language which 
     satisfactorily addresses the EPA bias in granting only 50 
     percent credit for test-and-repair I/M programs and places 
     the burden of proof on EPA to document any alleged 
     shortcomings it perceives in a test-and-repair I/M program. 
     States need the opportunity to get their proposed emissions 
     inspection programs up and running. If, once in place, the 
     real-world data proves that a program is insufficient, then 
     EPA could require that the State submit a new plan. States 
     should not, however, be prevented from implementing their 
     proposals on the basis of an arbitrary formula.
       Thank you for your consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
     George Allen,
                                             Governor of Virginia.
     Pete Wilson,
                                           Governor of California.
     George W. Bush,
                                                Governor of Texas.
     Tom Ridge,
                                         Governor of Pennsylvania.
     George F. Pataki,
                                             Governor of New York.

                               Exhibit 2

                                     Department of Transportation,


                               Federal Highway Administration,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 1995.
     Subject: Authority of the Department of Transportation to 
         prevent abuses of 23 U.S.C. 131.
     From: Deputy Chief Counsel.
     To: Rodney E. Slater, Administrator.
       FHWA has indicated to three States that proposed 
     legislative or administrative actions are inconsistent with 
     23 U.S.C. Sec. 131(s). In each case, the State was 
     considering a statute or administrative action which would 
     have removed from their scenic byways all commercial and 
     industrial areas. The blanket exemption of commercial and 
     industrial areas required no judgment about the scenic 
     quality of excluded segments. In each case, we based our 
     action on our general authority to prevent outright 
     circumvention of the requirements of the Highway 
     Beautification Act (HBA). In our judgment, nothing in the 
     language proposed by Senator Warner, either on October 26, or 
     more recently, would impair our authority to prevent such 
     action in the future. For clarity of reference, both draft 
     proposals are attached.
       The Department of Transportation has asserted its authority 
     to prevent deliberate circumventions of the requirements of 
     the HBA since 1971. At that time, we asserted our authority 
     to challenge strip zoning undertaken solely to allow for the 
     erection of billboards. We did so in the face of a specific 
     clause in 23 U.S.C. Sec. 131(d) asserting that States have 
     full authority under their zoning laws to zone areas for 
     commercial and industrial purposes, and that State action 
     must be accepted for such purposes. Our standards for 
     adequate zoning, which specifically prohibits zoning solely 
     to allow outdoor advertising, are contained in our 
     regulations at 23 C.F.R. Sec. 750.708, promulgated in 1975. 
     We have also asserted our general authority to prevent 
     abusive practices on any number of occasions. As early as 
     1976, the General Counsel prepared an extensive legal opinion 
     to this effect. Our authority to fashion appropriate remedies 
     to accomplish the HBA purposes has been upheld by the Courts 
     on several occasions. See, for example, South Dakota v. 
     Volpe, 353 F. Supp. 335 (D.S.D. 1973), and 

[[Page S17206]]
     South Dakota v. Adams, 587 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1978).
       Looking at the language proposed in the two drafts being 
     considered by Senator Warner, we note that the general 
     prohibition of new signs (except those allowed by 
     Sec. 131(c)) adjacent to scenic byways on the Interstate or 
     primary system is unchanged in either version. In each case, 
     a qualifying sentence is added which would permit states to 
     exclude from a state designated scenic byway those sections 
     it determines not to be scenic. This language, in itself, 
     contains the basis for exclusions. While it is clear in 
     adopting such an amendment Congress would 
     allocate considerable discretion to the States in making 
     determinations about whether a particular section of 
     highway is or is not scenic under State law, it is not a 
     blanket exclusion. This is similar to the provisions of 
     the provision of Sec. 131(d) mentioned above. In both 
     cases, the Department would continue to have the authority 
     to prevent actions which plainly are not related to the 
     purpose of the legislative exemption. Thus, we can now 
     prevent abusive zoning practices, and we will continue to 
     be able to prevent inappropriate exclusions of scenic 
     segments of a scenic byway. The language which provides 
     both the purpose of the exemption and the scope of State 
     discretion is the same in both versions proposed by 
     Senator Warner.
       It must be noted that even under Sec. 131(s) in its current 
     form, the provision to prevent the erection of new signs 
     applies only to Interstate and Federal aid primary highways 
     that are on State designated scenic byways. No definition or 
     limitation as to what is a State scenic byway is contained in 
     the law. Implicit in its formulation, however, is a reliance 
     on State law definitions. In spite of this implication, we 
     have asserted our authority to prevent abusive 
     interpretations of or amendments to State law in how the 
     State scenic byway program should operate under Sec. 131(s).
       The ability to intervene to prevent potentially abusive 
     State actions, as we did in Louisiana, Tennessee, or New 
     Mexico, is unchanged under either proposed amendment. These 
     amendments neither add to nor detract from our current 
     ability to generally prohibit abusive practices which have as 
     their purpose the circumvention of the HBA, rather than 
     legitimate exclusions of non-scenic segments of a State 
     designated scenic byway.
                                                Edward V.A. Kussy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the distinguished chairman leaves 
the floor, first, I want to thank him for his kind remarks on my 
behalf, and, indeed, on behalf of our staff. I know that the Senator 
shares my view that this staff here, Jean Lauver and Ann Loomis, are 
absolutely superb. Rather than thank them at the end, let us thank them 
at the beginning.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to include members of the Democratic staff 
likewise. I know Senator Baucus will touch on that, but we appreciate 
everyone.
  Mr. WARNER. Knowing the chairman's time is short, I think we should 
address here in a brief colloquy the question of the billboards. I know 
this is a subject on which the chairman has spent many, many years of 
hard work. It is the opinion of this Senator that the Senate held 
firmly throughout these negotiations with respect to the provisions in 
ISTEA, which established the landmark legislation on the billboards. 
And at no time did we yield in any way to the House on that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is quite correct. In the ISTEA legislation of 
1991, we had passed a provision dealing with scenic byways. And the 
provision was that on scenic byways there could be no new billboards; 
there could be the existing billboards, but no new ones.
  The House wanted to greatly weaken those provisions. One of their 
problems, they said, was that they required segmenting. In other words, 
a scenic byway might last for 30 miles and then there would be a 3-mile 
segment that would not be scenic and then there would be another 20 
miles. They thought that should be taken care of. That was a legitimate 
problem, and we addressed that. But in no way was the billboard 
provision gutted in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I want to say to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, I greatly appreciate the way he stood firm, and, indeed, this 
was the provision that held up this legislation right from the 
beginning. We were on this legislation for, what?--3 weeks, the 
conference. The bulk of the matters were settled in the first week, but 
it was this billboard provision that held things up. We stood our 
ground and came out with a measure that I believe everybody interested 
in scenic byways can be pleased with.
  Indeed, I would like to just state here the report language, the last 
sentence in this particular area:

       The Secretary of Transportation has the authority to 
     prevent actions that evade Federal requirements.

  In other words, we have not given up the authority of the Secretary 
in any fashion here.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point an 
editorial from the New York Times which inaccurately states the matter 
in which this conference was concluded.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 14, 1995]

                            Billboard Blight

       Billboards bring blight to the highways, but the billboard 
     industry brings cash to members of Congress. That is why 
     Congress is close to undoing a modest achievement in the long 
     struggle to limit the spread of roadways signs. Billboard 
     lobbyists have held up $6 billion in highway construction 
     funds while pressing to repeal a ban on new billboards on 
     roads designated as scenic byways.
       Their strategy may be working. The Senate whose highway 
     spending bill did not mention billboards, is yielding to 
     House conferees who insist on gutting a billboard ban enacted 
     only four years ago. At stake is a 1991 Federal program that 
     has encouraged 42 states to designate a modest 15,000 miles 
     of highway--less than 1 percent of all American roads--as 
     scenic byways. Under the program, new billboards are banned. 
     In exchange the states are permitted to advertise the roads 
     as ``scenic,'' which helps attract tourists. They also 
     received Federal funding for roadside cleanups and 
     beautification.
       From time to time, the Federal Department of Transportation 
     has granted exemptions for new billboards in commercial or 
     industrial sections--but not nearly enough exemptions to suit 
     Representative Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania, chairman of the 
     House Transportation Committee. Re-elected in 1994 with the 
     help of $67,000 from billboard interests, Mr. Shuster 
     persuaded the House to insert in the transportation spending 
     bill a provision giving states complete discretion.
       Senator John Warner of Virginia, negotiating for the 
     Senate's version of the bill, asked Mr. Shuster to drop the 
     billboard provision in return for the Senate's dropping a 
     measure allowing states to use some highway money for 
     passenger railroads. Mr. Shuster rejected that offer and Mr. 
     Warner gave in, saying the highway funding was too important 
     to allow further delay.
       Mr. Warner asked only for House agreement on a largely 
     meaningless gesture, language that would show Congress's 
     approval of the way the Transportation Department has been 
     dealing with proposed exemptions. But Chairman Shuster wants 
     even this parliamentary stroking toned down.
       The fragile scenic byways program, which depends on 
     Federal-state cooperation and sensitivity toward the 
     environment is now in danger of being picked apart, state by 
     state. The Senate needs to reject this threat to the 
     landscape.

  Mr. WARNER. I think the orderly way to proceed would be to now have 
our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana, who 
likewise kept a firm hand on this conference as we proceeded to resolve 
it together with his colleagues. And I want to thank him. He looked 
after the interests of this bill from its very inception.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for 
those kinds remarks.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased today that finally the Senate is 
considering the conference report on the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995. This has been long in coming and, I might say, 
a bit too long because the deadline for Congress to pass this 
legislation was October 1, some 6 weeks ago. Since that date over $6.5 
billion in Federal highway funds have been withheld, that is, they have 
been withheld from the States, very simply because of our failure, 
congressional failure, over the past 6 weeks to get this bill passed. 
It has been around for a couple years.
  This has meant delayed contracts. It has meant postponing jobs. 
Passing this bill today, however, means the States will soon be 
receiving those funds. That is good news for the States, good news for 
the thousands of construction workers and others who will benefit from 
new jobs.
  The delay has been the result of some major differences between the 
House- and the Senate-passed bills. It was not easy to reconcile them, 
but the leadership of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Chafee, and the chairman of 

[[Page S17207]]
the conference, Senator Warner, finally bridged the distance and 
brought the conference report to us here today.
  The report includes a number of important provisions. I will very 
briefly touch on some of them. But, first, let me put this bill in 
context. The National Highway System, or NHS, is a network of over 
160,000 miles of the Nation's most critical roads. Although they 
account for only a small part of the total public road miles, these 
roads carry the bulk of our commerce.
  Most importantly, the NHS is really the key to a seamless network 
that uses all modes of transportation, linking roads to airports, 
seaports, and rail yards. It will expand economic opportunities in big 
cities and in small communities. And it will make our businesses more 
competitive in the global marketplace.
  The National Highway System is especially vital, I might say, to 
rural areas, areas where highways are the only method of 
transportation. Whether it is the transport of goods and services, 
traveling for family vacation, or business or taking the kids to 
college, highways play a vital role in our lives and our jobs, most 
particularly in rural areas.

  For Western States like Montana, we have few alternatives to roads. 
We do not have the mass transit and water transport systems that many 
other States depend on. And we will never have them. We are a large 
State with no big cities. To make matters worse, we have very limited 
air service. So designation of the National Highway System is vital. 
Montana has more miles of roads per capita than any other State, and 
over 3,800 miles of them are included in the NHS. This is about 800 
miles more than proposed by the Bush administration.
  The additional routes include highway 200 between Great Falls and 
Missoula and Lewistown going west to Winnett, Jordan, Circle, Sidney, 
and Fairview; highway 12 from Helena to Garrison Junction; highway 59 
from Miles City to Broadus, a very rural part of our State; highway 87 
between Billings, Roundup, and Grassrange--you can imagine those are 
not metropolises--highway 212 from the Crow Agency to Lame Deer and 
Alzada, even more rural.
  These NHS roads link Montana farms and ranches to the Great Lakes and 
to the Pacific Ocean. These roads get our wheat to Russia and our beef 
to Japan. In short, they are our economic livelihood.
  What is the practical effect of NHS? Most importantly, by identifying 
these critical roads, States will be able to target their highway 
dollars to make sure the roads that get the most use are also the 
safest and most efficient. So the NHS really does set the stage for our 
transportation future, both in Montana and in the country.
  Mr. President, in addition to designating the National Highway 
System, the conference report also reduces a number of very burdensome 
regulations and repeals several highway fund sanctions. For example, 
the conference report repeals the national maximum speed limit. This 
means that the States can now decide for themselves what the 
appropriate speed limit should be on their roads without the threat of 
losing Federal highway funds.
  I support the repeal of the speed limit. I strongly believe that the 
State and local officials are just as deeply concerned about the safety 
of their citizens as those of us here who serve in Washington. State 
and local officials will take safety into consideration when deciding 
the appropriate speed limits. This provision simply recognizes reality, 
Mr. President; namely, that what may be the appropriate limit in 
Montana will probably not make sense in New York City.
  Let me also point out that the conference report gives Governors a 
say as to when the repeal goes into effect. Governors will have 10 days 
after the enactment of the conference report in which to decide whether 
they want the proposal to go into effect immediately or to be reviewed 
by the State legislature. If he or she chooses the latter course, the 
repeal of the speed limit would not take effect until the legislature 
takes action, otherwise, the repeal would become effective at the end 
of 10 days.
  Another major accomplishment of this bill is the reduction in 
burdensome paper requirements for the States. For example, States will 
no longer have to develop six separate management systems or exhaustive 
planning documents.
  These management systems have become a worthless paperwork exercise, 
particularly for rural States. Yet, failure to develop these systems 
mean a 10-percent sanction of highway funds. This conference report 
repeals these requirements and will relieve States of this unnecessary 
burden.
  Mr. President, it has taken the conference almost 2 months to reach 
this agreement. As I said earlier, this has left the States without 
highway trust funds for that amount of time. That has been unfortunate 
and I think unnecessary. However, the Senate will shortly begin the 
process to resume the flow of highway dollars to the States, and with 
quick action by the House and the President, States will soon see not 
only a restoration of highway funds, but the elimination of unnecessary 
regulations.
  So this is a good bill. It is a jobs bill. It is a reform bill. It 
will be good for Montana and for the country. I urge all my colleagues 
to support the conference report.
  Let me close by, again, thanking my good friends, Senator Warner and 
Senator Chafee, for their leadership. Without their skill and, I might 
say, determination, we would not be here today.
  Finally, let me add a few words of thanks to the Montana Department 
of Transportation and the Montana Highway Commission. The advice of 
people like highway commissioner Tom Forseth, transportation director 
Marvin Dye, Sandy Straehl, his assistant, and John DeVierno have all 
been invaluable, and I thank them very much. Most importantly, Mr. 
President, I thank the people of Montana for their very good advice and 
help in crafting this legislation.
  I also wish to thank the staff for the majority, Jean Lauver and Ann 
Loomis, for their hard work and dedication on this bill. And, of 
course, Kathy Ruffalo of my staff who has put in countless hours to 
bring this bill to where it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again commend the distinguished ranking 
member, our former chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. He had a firm hand on this legislation from its very 
inception. I certainly join him in acknowledging that many outside 
groups did make valuable contributions to the formulation of this piece 
of legislation--in my State, Governor Allen and Secretary Martinez. 
Indeed, we incorporated into this bill the flexibility of States to 
look for other means, which I will address later, of financing highway 
projects. Now that the Federal funding could well be diminished in the 
years to come, we have to look to alternative methods of financing.
  Mr. President, I note the presence of the President pro tempore on 
the floor. He asked to make a brief statement, and then I will resume 
mine. At this moment, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this bill is one of the most 
comprehensive and important bills for our Nation. It means a lot to all 
the States in this country. I want to commend Senator Chafee, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his good 
work on this bill, and I want to especially commend the able Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his great work. He is chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Highways.
  This means a lot to our entire country, and what they have done here 
is going to improve the highway system of America. I just want to 
extend my highest commendation to them.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished senior 
Senator from South Carolina. I also wish to note that in this bill is a 
new corridor, a new interstate corridor known as I-73/I-74. The 
distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina participated, together 
with his Governor and State highway transportation authorities, in a 
critical decision as to how this highway, as it exited North Carolina, 
then traversed the South Carolina road system.
  So I wish to thank him for that help in designating exactly how that 
very 

[[Page S17208]]
important new arterial highway will pass in his State.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation for 
the way this worked out. I think it is satisfactory now to North 
Carolina and South Carolina. With the help of the able Senator from 
Virginia, this was able to come to pass.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague.
  I am going to start again by acknowledging the absolute superb 
professional assistance given by Jean Lauver, Ann Loomis, and Kathy 
Ruffalo, who are present in the Chamber this morning.
  I also wish to thank Steve Shimberg, Tom Sliter, Gary Smith, Chris 
Russell, Alex Washburn, Greg Daines, Larry Dwyer, Linda Jordan, and 
Ellen Stein for their valuable contributions to this legislation from 
its inception through this conference report
  As stated by the distinguished chairman and ranking member, with 
approval of this conference report, we release $6.5 billion in National 
Highway System and interstate maintenance funds from the Highway Trust 
Fund to all States. This is not new spending, Mr. President. We are 
here today and tomorrow addressing spending, but I want to make it very 
clear, this funding comes from gasoline taxes and other user fees the 
motoring public--that is when you drive up in your automobile or your 
truck or other vehicle to that particular gas pump, you pay that 
Federal gas tax. It goes into this Highway Trust Fund, and that public 
pays into the fund. It is really their dollars that we are redirecting 
back to the States such that their Governors and their appropriate 
highway officials in the State can designate how best to spend those 
funds on their behalf.
  Again, it is funding their citizens have provided for the direct 
purpose of maintaining a first-rate transportation system. That is my 
first point, Mr. President.
  Throughout this, we preserve the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund. 
It was a decision in this Chamber relating to the authority of 
Governors to use part of those funds for the purpose of the Amtrak 
system. It was the decision of the conference, over which I was 
privileged to chair, that we would reject that provision, again 
preserving the integrity of these funds to be used just for the 
highways, bridges and associated needs connected with road 
transportation.
  Mr. President, I want to commend, again, all who participated in this 
legislation and proceed now to state that this is a report which is a 
bipartisan effort on behalf, again, of the minority and majority and 
also within the administration. There was very valuable participation 
by Secretary Pena and the Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the 
Federal Highway Administration.

  Rodney Slater, the Administrator, came to my office on many occasions 
and, indeed, on other occasions, I had to call him late into the night, 
but he was always there quickly to respond, together with a very well-
qualified professional staff, to deal with the many technical issues 
involved.
  I also acknowledge that my working partner in the conference was 
Congressman Shuster, the chairman of the House committee. He has a 
wealth of knowledge with respect to these issues and, as I said, 
neither of us blinked. We worked together constructively, recognizing 
that there were differences between the two Chambers, but in the end, I 
think we reconciled those differences in a manner that is in the best 
interest of our Nation's transportation system.
  I certainly join Senator Chafee in acknowledging that I was 
disappointed, as was he, with reference to the will of the Senate and 
the will of the majority, likewise, in the House to take certain 
measures relating to highway safety and transfer them from Federal 
decisionmaking authority down to the Governors and the various highway 
transportation authorities in the States.
  I only urge them to look upon the safety considerations very 
carefully, and particularly those considerations as relate to senior 
citizens. Senior citizens are finding it increasingly difficult to cope 
with these modern highways and high speeds, and the differential 
between car speed and truck speed which occur in some instances.
  I hope, and I must say I pray, that the Governors will be ever so 
careful as they address this new authority as it relates to their 
several States.
  Mr. President, this legislation will move America's transportation 
system into the next century. It will ensure our competitiveness in a 
global marketplace by providing for the efficient movement of goods and 
people.
  I want to take a moment to talk about the history of highway 
legislation in our United States. I found it of great interest, as I 
went back and read, frankly, the biographies and other writings 
relating to General Eisenhower.
  This bill today is really a reaffirmation of his vision and his early 
work. It goes way back to 1919, in the aftermath of World War I. 
Eisenhower did not get to France. It was a matter of great personal 
disappointment to him. But his then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army was 
``Blackjack'' Pershing, the general that led the AEF in France in World 
War I. Pershing, having been elevated to the top job in the U.S. Army, 
began immediately to look into the future, and he recognized that 
America, at some point in time, might have to move swiftly military 
equipment from the east coast to the west coast, or indeed in reverse 
direction. So he called on a young lieutenant colonel by the name of 
Eisenhower and said, ``Take a convoy of this military equipment,'' 
heavy equipment, the very equipment that was used in France, the 
equipment that the people in our country had not seen, other than 
through just pictures, ``and move it from the east cost to the west 
coast.''
  Eisenhower embarked on this mission, and he wrote about it 
extensively--about the difficulty of maneuvering through certain areas 
and the limitation of certain bridges. The trip took over 60 days to 
transit this equipment, and often, on some days, he only managed 5 
miles per day.
  That left in Eisenhower's mind an indelible need for America, some 
day, to modernize its road system.
  The next chapter occurred when he was Commander in Chief of Allied 
Forces in Europe. When he, after D-day, first arrived on the European 
Continent to direct, hands on, his forces, he was amazed, as he would 
study the maps late into the night, about the rapid movements of the 
Third Reich forces to reposition themselves to confront the Allied 
Forces, utilizing the Audubon system which had been laid down over a 
period of many years by the Third Reich. I think at that point in time 
he said we must move America forward. Of course, as we all know, that 
came about when he ascended to the Presidency.
  At that time, he started the National Highway System--55,000 miles. 
This bill now adds to that original system, which, in large measure, is 
completed in the bill. The new highway system was designated by the 
several Governors and the highway boards to make up this modern system 
we are fortunate to have in our country today. It is perhaps the best 
to be found anywhere in the world. This system map, which this 
legislation is approving today, consists of 160,000 miles. States, with 
the approval of the Secretary of Transportation, have authority to 
modify these routes, reposing in the Governors and the States the 
authority to modify these routes for additional miles, as provided in 
the ISTEA legislation of 1991--without further congressional approval, 
Mr. President. In other words, we have taken Congress out of some of 
the traditional roles that we have held onto in past years and given it 
to the Governors and the States, to give flexibility.
  This total mileage of 160,600 miles consists of 44,000 miles of the 
interstate system, 5,000 miles of high-priority corridors, 15,000 miles 
of noninterstate strategic highway network routes, and 1,900 miles of 
strategic highway network connectors.
  The remaining 91,000 miles were identified by our States and the 
Federal Highway Administration. The product of a 2-year dialog between 
the Federal Highway Administration and the Governors resulted in this 
map.
  The National Highway System ensures a Federal commitment to a limited 
network of America's most heavily traveled roads. Although representing 
only 4 percent of the Nation's total highway miles, these roads carry 
40 

[[Page S17209]]
percent of all highway travel and 75 percent of all commercial travel.

  One of the most compelling reasons for this map and the NHS is the 
link it will provide for our rural communities. Listen carefully, Mr. 
President. I am fascinated with this statement: Ninety percent of all 
households in America will now be located within 5 miles of an NHS road 
system.
  Mr. President, this conference report is the product of compromise on 
many issues. ``Compromise'' is not a word that is in great favor these 
days on Capitol Hill, but it certainly was utilized in bringing 
together this conference report. I am proud of the modest achievement 
that I had in participating. I am pleased that both sides wanted this 
legislation to reduce regulatory burdens on our State transportation 
partners. This conference report repeals the requirement to use crumb 
rubber in asphalt, to convert transportation signs to metric 
measurements, and to implement management systems. Again, this is a 
transfer of power from the Federal Government to the State governments.
  In responding to the need to increase State flexibility in using 
these transportation funds, the conference report did, among other 
things, the following:
  It allows States to use NHS funds on intermodal connectors.
  It establishes a pilot program for State infrastructure banks.
  It adopts all of the Senate provisions on innovative financing to 
attract private resources to transportation projects.
  It addresses the budget shortfall resulting from section 1003 of 
ISTEA. States can spend unobligated balances as a means of offsetting 
reductions that will occur from this provision.
  The conference report does not provide any funding for new 
demonstration projects.
  I would like to digress a moment on that, Mr. President.
  One of the distinguished Members of this body came to me, in a very 
polite way, and was quite critical. He felt we had put a lot of pork in 
this bill. I would like to state my view of what this bill has and has 
not. First, when I initiated the hearings on the Senate side, I took a 
stance that we would, in the Senate, try to resist pork and any new 
projects. This is in contrast to the 1994 House-passed NHS bill--last 
year's bill. That bill was stopped by the Senate. But in that bill, the 
House had 283 new demonstration projects. I think that was the reason 
that bill never saw signature from the President. And then, in 1991, 
ISTEA, that bill provided $6.2 billion in contract authority for 539 
projects. I repeat, 539 projects, Mr. President.
  That highway trust fund money is distributed to those projects before 
States receive transportation funds, based on the formula calculation. 
ISTEA also provided for $8.9 billion in general fund authorization for 
41 projects. This is not funded from the Highway Trust Fund.
  Now, Mr. President, we changed that. We did quite a different thing 
in this bill.
  Mr. President, I repeat, the conference report does not provide any 
new funding for demonstration projects. We did accept the House 
provisions that redefine some previously authorized projects to permit 
States to use existing funds for revised priorities.
  For example, Mr. President, in ISTEA, I will hold this chart up. I 
will not burden the Record with it. But this is how, in a very 
complicated formula, we allocated all of those funds in ISTEA. But a 
State got an allocation, and the conference felt that since a State had 
gotten it under ISTEA and had made a number of plans for expenditure of 
those funds, we should allow them the flexibility--each State--to 
retain those funds, which can no longer be applied to a specific 
project in that State, but could be transferred to another project, 
clearly identified with their highway system. I think that is a proper 
flexibility given to the Governors. But, again, there is no new money 
in this bill.
  On the matter of outdoor advertising on State-designated scenic 
byways, the House provision was significantly modified. It was my view 
that it was appropriate for the conference to simply codify the current 
policies and procedures now being implemented and through the 
intervening years since ISTEA, through today, by the Federal Highway 
Administration. Since ISTEA, in 1991, States have been permitted to 
designate noncontiguous scenic byways.
  Those segments of a scenic byway that are not designated must be 
based on a State's criteria. The effect of this provision will be that 
States are allowed discretion in segmenting these routes, but the 
Federal Government's authority to protect truly scenic byways is 
preserved.
  I think I can characterize that as follows: This was a highly 
contentious issue between the House and the Senate. I respect the views 
of those on both sides.
  That issue, in my judgment, most properly should be addressed next 
year in 1996 when the Congress again exercises oversight and indeed 
perhaps other authority with respect to ISTEA. That is the time to 
readdress the issue of the billboards.
  Therefore, my challenge was to draw a provision in this bill which 
left the compass, so to speak, at point zero. It does not move one 
degree toward more billboards or one degree toward less billboards. It 
leaves both sides in status quo, preserving the right for both sides in 
the context of hearings on ISTEA in 1996 to bring forth the witnesses 
and state their case for or against a change in the current billboard 
policy as it relates to the scenic highways.
  I think that was fairness. I regard it as a major achievement by the 
Senate conferees.
  The conference report also reflects the will of both bodies on the 
speed limit issue. While the Senate maintained the Federal speed limit 
on commercial vehicles, this conference report fully repeals the 
national maximum speed limit law. States now have the choice and the 
responsibility to set a speed limit that responds to their specific 
highway conditions.
  This is an area in which I personally disagreed, but again it was the 
will of both Chambers and therefore it was not, in a technical sense, a 
conferenceable item.
  I remain concerned, personally, speaking for myself, deeply concerned 
about changing the 55-miles-per-hour speed limit and strongly urge our 
States to recognize the 20 years of safety benefits that we have 
received from a responsible speed limit. I want to thank a number of 
outside organizations that intervened on this issue. I join in 
expressing my disappointment that we were not able to continue in 
certain areas Federal supervision over the safety measures as it 
relates to speed, helmets, safety belts, and other issues.
  I am pleased to report that a provision is included requiring States 
to enact a zero alcohol tolerance level for persons under the age of 21 
driving a motor vehicle. Mr. President, that has not received much 
attention as of yet. I urge Senators to look at that provision. Day 
after day there are news reports of young persons involved in tragic, 
senseless traffic fatalities caused by alcohol and speed. Lowering the 
blood alcohol content for driving-while-intoxicated offenses is a small 
but a constructive step we must take.
  Mr. President, the goal of the NHS is to leave a legacy for the next 
generation. That legacy is an intermodal transportation system, a 
system that is not fragmented into separate parts, but rather one that 
works in sync to serve the many diverse interests of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. This matter is under a time limitation. The chairman has 
returned to the floor. There is a Member seeking recognition.
  Parliamentary inquiry; how much time remains under the chairman of 
the committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of our time to the 
Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while I believe this bill to be 
extraordinarily progressive from the point of view of engineering and 
the designation of highways and the degree of flexibility allowed the 
States in construction projects, I nevertheless am constrained to vote 
against the bill by reason of a number of its other provisions. 

[[Page S17210]]


  First, again, while the Senator from Virginia particularly is to be 
congratulated on at least severely limiting the damage to billboard 
control contained in the bill, it is ironic that while there is a 
provision in this bill to grant States greater flexibility to get out 
from under billboard controls, nothing is done in this bill to allow 
States to enforce their own laws with respect to billboard controls if 
they wish to do it in a different way than present Federal law 
requires.
  Mr. President, a great deal has been said about the delegation of 
responsibility to the States, but the bill denies States the right to 
use their trust funds to support Amtrak, to support rail transportation 
as an alternative if they wish to do so.
  Neither of these provisions, however, Mr. President, would be 
sufficient to vote against the bill, but the safety provisions are. The 
collection of provisions relating to safety in this bill are simply 
going to kill hundreds or thousands of Americans over the next few 
years. The combination of the removal of any Federal control whatever 
over speed limits, the removal of any Federal requirement with respect 
to motorcyclists' helmets, the easing of restrictions on certain 
trucks, in combination, Mr. President, are going to make our highways 
less safe to drive on. It is just as simple as that.
  The 55-mile-per-hour speed limit is, of course, an anachronism. It is 
not abided by 80 or 90 percent of the drivers on our highways and not 
enforced by State patrols, but that does not mean that some control 
over speeds on highways which are interstate or Federal in nature are 
not appropriate. Far too many States will set either no speed limits at 
all or speed limits that are far too high.
  The society is going to end up paying an increased set of health care 
costs as a result of the absence of motorcycle helmets. We may also 
lose people and lose time as a result of some of the truck safety 
provisions in this bill.
  In short, Mr. President, more people will be killed, more people will 
be injured, health care costs will be greater, all in the guise of 
delegating responsibilities to the States where in certain other areas, 
appropriate delegation has not taken place.
  I regret this. I believe the Senate conferees did a wonderful job, 
the best job they possibly could have under the circumstances, but 
overall this is an unsafe bill.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask the distinguished Senator from Washington --first, 
I concur in everything he said about the speed limit. As he remembers, 
I fought to preserve those speed limits on the floor here. There were 
overwhelming votes against this, as the Senator recalls--I think 
something like 66-32. We got nowhere.
  I would just like to, if I might, ascertain from the Senator what he 
was saying about weakening billboard controls. I did not quite 
understand that.
  Mr. GORTON. The billboard provisions are relatively minor, but for 
some reason or other caused a great deal of discussion on this floor a 
little earlier with appropriate congratulations to the Senator from 
Virginia for at least subverting some of the House provisions which 
really would have gutted the billboard control.
  I simply wish to point out that while most of that damage was 
contained, if, in fact, it is appropriate to delegate responsibilities 
to the States as in some minor way this does, why was not the 
proposition to delegate to the States the right to set billboard 
controls without having to pay for that billboard controls approach? It 
seems to me we have a very selective view in this Congress of what 
powers ought to be delegated to States.
  I heard, I believe, the Senator from Virginia say he hopes the 
subject will be taken up next year. I must say I fear they will take it 
up next year and we will have further weakening rather than any 
strengthening of those rules.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Washington that he is right, there is a selectivity about flexibility 
in the States, and the Senator wisely pointed that out. Flexibility is 
wanted as far as speed limits and helmets go and all that, but when it 
comes to flexibility and spending funds for Amtrak, State funds, that 
flexibility cannot be granted. But those are what we run into, even 
though we had, on Amtrak, a very favorable vote here on the Senate 
floor.

  But on the billboard matter, I would like to stress that the 
billboard section solely dealt with scenic byways, not the overall 
billboard control. And, second, we feel confident, and we spent a lot 
of time on this--I personally spent more time on this part than 
anything else in the conference--we feel that we have not given away 
anything in connection with the billboard control and that what we have 
codified is the exact practice that the highway administration is 
currently following.
  So I think we came out well on the thing, particularly in the final 
line in the conference report which I read earlier, which stated that 
``The Secretary of Transportation has the authority to prevent actions 
that evade Federal requirements.''
  So I am satisfied with how we came out.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his 
explanation, and I wish him good luck.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana continues to control 
the time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that the time on this side of 
the aisle, so to speak, even though the distinguished ranking Member 
and I are both proponents of the bill, has expired. I ask unanimous 
consent 15 minutes could be added to the time allocated to the Senator 
from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Washington, I 
voted vigorously against the raising of the speed limit. But I bring to 
my colleague's attention, the Senate voted 65 to 35. That is nearly 
two-thirds of the Senate. Therefore, there was really no issue before 
the conferees that we could go back and readdress such a powerful vote. 
The vote in the House was basically just as strong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask, what is the situation with 
respect to time? I believe I have an hour available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, he has 1 hour.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. What is the time constraint or the structure right 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes and 33 seconds left with 
the majority and 14 minutes and 29 seconds left with the Senator from 
Montana.
  The Senator from Ohio has 15 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could the Chair tell me whether the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Biden, is scheduled for some time?
  Mr. WARNER. He was to have time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is in the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 30 minutes, if 
he chooses to make a motion to recommit.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I find myself in a kind of awkward 
position, because I really believe we ought to make the investment in 
highways that is called for in this bill. I will talk in some detail 
about that. But I have some very serious concerns about the abandonment 
of safety in the interests of getting from here to there.
  That is what I see happening with this bill. It is kind of a ``safety 
be damned, go ahead with the Toronados,'' and whatever the names of the 
other vehicles are. So, therefore, Mr. President, I rise in opposition 
to the conference report on the National Highway System bill.
  As one of the Senate's primary advocates for infrastructure 
investment, I strongly support passage of legislation to designate the 
National Highway System. In fact, I was an original cosponsor of 
legislation in both the 103d and 104th Congresses to accomplish this. 
This $6.5 billion for the fiscal 1996 year that this conference report 
authorizes, is sorely needed. If we need any proof of that, just 
consider these few grim facts.
  Almost one-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition. 

[[Page S17211]]
   This, in our wealthy, great country, America. One-fourth of our 
highways are in poor or mediocre condition, while another 36 percent 
are rated only fair. That is a total of 61 percent between the two that 
are fair or poor. One in five of the Nation's bridges is structurally 
deficient, 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. The cost to the economy for that is $39 
billion.
  Experts indicate that an additional investment of $32 billion is 
needed to bring our highway and bridge infrastructure up to standard. 
Failure to make these investments increases costs in both the short and 
the long term. For example, failure to invest $1 today in needed 
highway resurfacing can mean up to $4 in highway reconstruction costs 2 
years hence.
  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 public and private investment. That is not 
just my view. Over 400 of our Nation's leading economists have urged 
Government to increase public investment.
  These economists have urged us to remember that public investment in 
our people and in our infrastructure is essential to future economic 
growth, and clearly the National Highway System is a critical element 
of our public infrastructure. It is essential that we maintain that 
investment and increase our commitment in this area.
  Unfortunately, as much as I support the provisions in this 
legislation that would designate the NHS, I feel compelled to vote 
against this conference report. I do so for one simple reason, and that 
is that this bill undermines public safety.
  The bill will cost thousands of people their lives. It will mean that 
thousands of others will suffer serious injuries. It will mean that 
countless citizens will lose loved family members, be they their wife, 
mother, husband, father, son, daughter, brother, or sister--someone 
close, where the pain is extensive.
  There is no question that this bill will, unfortunately, end some 
lives and ruin others. I do not want the blood and the pain of these 
innocent Americans on our hands.
  I am concerned about what I see as a sense of complacency about 
highway safety in this Congress. It is disturbing. Maybe it is 
understandable. Maybe we have lost a sense of urgency about safety 
because we have made really good progress in the past. For 20 years, 
the motor vehicle death rate decreased steadily from a high in 1972 of 
56,000 to 41,000 in 1992, a significant decline in that 20-year period. 
It is roughly 16,000 persons. That happened while the population of 
vehicles grew by 50 million. So we have done a good job.
  Unfortunately, according to a recent report by the National Safety 
Council, the 20-year trend of improvements has now been reversed. In 
1993, traffic deaths rose to 42,200, and we learned that 43,000 died on 
our highways in 1994. This translates into a 5-percent increase over a 
mere 2-year period.
  Where is the increase in deaths occurring?
  A recently released DOT study showed that during fiscal year 1993, 
the latest year of the study, fatalities on roads posted at 55 miles an 
hour fell while fatalities on roads posted at 65 miles per hour rose. 
The study substantiates what we learned in 1974; that is, that speed 
kills. If we set reasonable speed limits, we will save lives.
  Mr. President, I heard one of our colleagues before say that nobody 
is obeying--or few are obeying--the speed limit laws. I do not quite 
know what that means in terms of this debate. Does it mean that people 
do not obey the law at 55, assuming, of course, that therefore 
enforcement is weak, and they therefore will obey the law at 75 miles 
an hour?
  That is a little hard to understand. I believe that if they go 65 
when it is 55, they will go 85 when it is 75, thereby increasing the 
risk to life and limb. That is why I am so concerned about the 
provisions in this conference report that would eliminate entirely all 
Federal speed limits.
  Mr. President, whether it is one of my children or one of the 
children of others in this Chamber, if you live in New Jersey and your 
kids or your grandchild is in a car traveling in Montana or Colorado, 
or what have you, I would like to know that family member of mine and 
of others here and of people across this country are protected to the 
fullest extent possible. That is why, when we say let the States decide 
when there is Federal money being put into these systems, that I think 
the Federal Government has an obligation. We are responsible for the 
lives and well-being of our citizens.
  One-third of all traffic accidents are caused by excessive speed. So 
common sense tells us that increased speed will lead to more 
fatalities. But, Mr. President, the magnitude of this increase is 
greater than many realize.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--
known as NHTSA--total repeal of Federal speed limit requirements will 
lead to the deaths of an estimated 6,400 Americans each year. That is 
6,400 more each year. Think about that for a second: 6,400 Americans 
will die each year because of the provisions in this bill that lift the 
Federal speed limits. These Americans will have typically family 
members left behind. It could be small children without a parent, or 
wives or husbands left to live their lives alone.
  Mr. President, those 6,400 Americans do not even include the 
thousands of others who will suffer disabling injuries in highway 
accidents. It does not include the people who will never again be able 
to walk or who will never again be able to work.
  Then, beyond these human costs, there are the financial costs. 
Lifting Federal speed limit restrictions will cost taxpayers over $19 
billion annually in lost productivity, taxes, and increased health care 
costs. This loss is on top of the $24 billion that we already lose as a 
result of motor vehicle accidents caused by excessive speed.
  To give you an idea about what that $19 billion in additional costs 
would mean for some States, consider this. For taxpayers in California, 
the additional cost would be $2 billion. For taxpayers in Texas, the 
cost would be $1.7 billion. These are additional costs as a result of 
the additional deaths and injuries that will occur.
  Mr. President, the same arguments about safety apply to the helmet 
provisions in this bill. More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes 
result in injury or death to the motorcyclists. Head injury is the 
leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Compared to a helmeted 
rider, an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal 
head injury. That is enormous difference--40 percent. That is one 
reason why NHTSA estimates that the use of helmets saved $5.9 billion 
between 1984 and 1992.
  Mr. President, repeal of mandatory helmet requirements is projected 
to lead to an additional 390 deaths every year, and it will also 
increase the annual cost to society by about $390 million.
  So, Mr. President, when you combine the effects of the speed limit 
removal and the motorcycle helmet provisions in this conference report, 
the legislation is likely to cause 6,800 deaths every year. That will 
mean more than 50,000 innocent people, men, women and children will 
lose their lives in traffic accidents in 1996.
  Mr. President, 50,000 deaths are simply unacceptable. The Nation was 
in mourning for many years after the close of the Vietnam war when we 
lost over 50,000 of our young, brave soldiers. Many of these deaths 
would have been preventable.
  Mr. President, I know that many of my colleagues believe strongly in 
the principle of States rights, and I respect their commitment to that 
view. But surely all of us believe in protecting innocent lives 
wherever possible. Who among us would intentionally withhold a cure for 
a young person dying of cancer, or AIDS, or some other terminal 
illness? Who could stand by a bedside and say, ``No, we can cure your 
condition, but we are not going to be able to give it to you. We are 
going to let you die.'' It would be unthinkable. Yet, in effect, Mr. 
President, that is exactly what we would be doing to thousands of 
Americans if we insist on weakening our highway safety laws.
  We will not know the faces of the innocent people who will die 
because of this conference report. But we know that there will be 
thousands and thousands of them. And I would suggest to 

[[Page S17212]]
my colleagues to look around at your constituents, at the people you 
know. Many of these, maybe some of these nameless and faceless 
casualties are even near us today. But we will not know it until it is 
too late.
  The vote that you cast in favor of increasing speed can cause 
excruciating pain and grief for families and friends that come from 
one's hometown or one's State.
  Mr. President, next time my colleagues are back home I encourage them 
to visit a trauma hospital. I have done it. It is an unfortunate, 
memorable experience. It is a terrible sight. The result of a serious 
accident often leaves a person in the condition that perhaps death 
might be a better outcome. Many cannot be recognized, or recognize 
their visitors.
  About a year ago, Mr. President, three young men in the State of New 
Jersey, ages 15 to 17, were waiting to make a turn off a road. The car 
they were driving was struck by a car from the rear. The force of the 
accident pushed this car into the oncoming traffic, where it was struck 
by a vehicle going in the other direction. Two of these young men died 
at the scene, and the third was rushed to the hospital in critical 
condition.
  That weekend I went to the hospital to visit the boy and his family, 
who are people I know. It was a terrible experience. This young man--
his name was Kenneth Agler--was in bed in a coma. His family did not 
know whether he would ever wake up again and, if he did, doctors were 
not sure what permanent damage he might have sustained. I held his 
hand, and I looked in his eyes, and he stared right through me. His 
body was there but his soul, his mind, his vitality were absent.
  Kenneth did eventually come out of his coma, but he has many years of 
tough, painful, and expensive physical therapy ahead of him. At the 
time of the accident Ken and his friends were obeying the law. They 
were doing everything they were supposed to in that situation. However, 
they were in what could be called the right place at the wrong time, 
and it was the car that came upon them moving at a high rate of speed 
that did the damage.
  Mr. President, we have a cure for this pain. The question is, do we 
have the will to use it? And we will not have if we refuse to set 
reasonable speed limit laws, and we will not if we refuse to encourage 
States to enact motorcycle helmet laws.
  We have had votes in this body on both of these issues, and in both 
cases, unfortunately, we lost. The vote on speed limits was 36 for 
maintaining them, 64 against. That was, I believe, a regrettable 
outcome. I fought hard to get the legislation passed.
  The debate for helmets was similarly decided. I do not know what the 
exact vote count was there, but the majority prevailed and helmets were 
no longer required.
  I will say, Mr. President, at this point that this conference report 
does have a prosafety provision which I support, and that provision 
establishes a zero tolerance policy for young people who drive after 
drinking under the age of 21 particularly. This provision is a positive 
step, and I commend our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, and the 
managers of the bill for including it.
  I authored the bill that set the drinking age at 21 across this 
country back in 1984, and it is believed that we have saved over 10,000 
young people from dying on the highways--10,000 families that did not 
have to mourn, 10,000 families that were exempted from the grief of 
losing a young family member. So this is a positive thing.
  Unfortunately, the benefits of this provision are far outweighed by 
other provisions that undermine highway safety. As a matter of fact, in 
this bill, we exempted a particular truck, a single-unit truck that 
weighs between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds gross weight, from routine 
inspections that are now required.
  That is terrible news. There are about 3.25 million of these 
vehicles. There are some horrible ``factoids'' that accompany this 
exemption. Single-unit truck crash fatalities have risen nearly 50 
percent in 4 years. Nearly 40 percent of all truck crashes involve 
single-unit trucks which fall within the class of vehicle eligible for 
the exemption program. In 1994, single-unit trucks were responsible for 
nearly 1,400 deaths. Ninety percent of these deaths were to the 
occupants of small passenger vehicles and nearly half of these deaths 
involved trucks that fit in this weight category.
  So we see another example of the abandonment of sensible safety rules 
included in this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post editorial dated 
October 12, 1995 be printed in the Record. It is entitled ``Trucks 
Amok,'' and it talks about the risk that is posed by the exemption of 
these trucks from routine safety inspection.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Trucks Amok

       Congress is doing a bang-up job of making this country's 
     highways more lethal than ever. It's all done in the name of 
     states' rights--on the grounds that 51 different sets of 
     laws, complete with higher speed limits and fewer incentives 
     for motorcycle helmet requirements--are the way to go. But 
     before the law-looseners send their big bill rolling down the 
     fast lane from Capitol Hill, there's one singularly 
     terrifying proposal that House and Senate conferees should 
     reject outright. It's a real killer, approved by the House 
     without a split-second of public debate or even a day of 
     public hearing: It could exempt a whole category of trucks--
     about 4.75 million of them--from all federal motor carrier 
     safety regulations of drivers, vehicles and equipment.
       This reckless provision is brought to you by your friendly 
     neighborhood fleets from Frito-Lay, U-Haul, FedEx, Pepsi-
     Cola, Kraft Foods, Eagle Snacks and other groups with single-
     unit trucks under 26,000 pounds. It just so happens that this 
     category of trucks is already exempted from requirements for 
     federal commercial drivers' licenses as well as from drug and 
     alcohol testing. The newest proposal makes it pretty simple: 
     This category of trucks would not be covered by federal 
     safety regulations of any kind.
       Why worry? Just don't think about the facts--that from 1991 
     to 1994, deaths involving single-unit trucks rose nearly 50 
     percent; or that their involvement in fatal crashes last year 
     resulted in 1,400 deaths, only 164 of them occupants of the 
     trucks. After all, new regulations can always be added if 
     found to be necessary for public safety. Or the states can 
     worry about it and set different standards for the same 
     truck--and different odds on your chances of living when 
     you're with them on the roads.
       Federal one-size-fits-all regulations may not make sense in 
     certain fields, but highways are killing fields as it is. 
     Conferees with consciences should see to it that the truck 
     exemption is rejected.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this conference report authorizes $6.5 
billion in infrastructure investments which we need, but while it gives 
on the one hand, it takes with the other. The antisafety provisions of 
this legislation will add almost $20 billion in additional costs on our 
society, so it is $6.5 billion in infrastructure investment more than 
offset in fact by three times with the extra $20 billion in additional 
costs on our society.
  The difference is that one is perceptible, can be seen, $6.5 billion 
in grant money from the Federal Government, as contrasted to people 
contributing in all areas of life, whether it is business or families 
or emergency medical and health care services--$6.5 billion in and $20 
billion out and with that 6,800 lives annually. So if one judges only 
from a financial perspective, this legislation is clearly 
counterproductive. But more important than the money, I repeat, will be 
the lives lost and the lives ruined as a result of the drawing of this 
legislation--6,800 lives annually at stake, tens of thousands more 
injuries, $20 billion in lost productivity, increased health care, and 
other economic problems.
  Opponents of the speed limit and motorcycle helmet laws argued that 
decisions in these areas should be the responsibility of the States, 
and while I am not against giving States more flexibility in using 
their Federal transportation dollars, I do not, frankly, understand how 
this decision is abandoned by the Federal Government.
  We made that decision here again. So I support the concept of more 
flexibility in ISTEA, again, in the debate over allowing States to use 
their highway funding to support inner-city rail service. 
Unfortunately, I understand that that provision was taken out in 
conference as it applies to Amtrak, which I believe is a serious error 
as well.
  Simply put, Mr. President, saving human lives ought to be our top 
priority. And while I support the provisions in the bill that would 
facilitate investment in our highway system on the zero tolerance 
provision, overall I see the bill as a major step backward, and I 
cannot support it. 

[[Page S17213]]

  I would like for a moment, Mr. President, to talk about what we show 
here on this chart about what higher speed limits mean. It shows 6,400 
deaths here, plus those that result from removing the helmet 
requirements, amount to 6,800 deaths a year, $20 billion roughly in 
higher costs. And it shows the distribution of costs as it occurs 
through the country.
  In a State like California, almost $2 billion; a State like Texas, 
$1.7 billion; in the State of Virginia, $480 million. That is all lost 
as a result of the increases in speed limits. That is not a very 
positive decision, certainly not from the standpoint of the lives lost 
and the extra dollars involved. That is just one example.
  Mr. President, the best demonstration of what happened with our 
change in speed limits goes back some years--1974, to be precise, 20 
years ago. These were the State speed limits that existed prior to 
1974, and they scattered around the country. Montana had no speed limit 
at all; many were 70 miles an hour or over.
  From what we hear on the floor, what we hear constantly is that 
people do not obey these laws anyway, and you can add 10 miles an hour 
to that or 15 miles an hour to that. So if there is a 75-mile-an-hour 
speed limit, woe be to that person driving on that highway at 55 miles 
an hour, because they are concerned about their safety to handle a 
vehicle when someone comes behind them going 85 miles an hour. One does 
not have to be a physicist to know of the result of the contact between 
those vehicles.
  So we are kind of abandoning ship at this point without the 
traditional lifeboats available, and saying, ``Go, go as fast as you 
want.'' The automobile companies are--you see it subtly advertised: 
``more power,'' ``get from there to here in 30 seconds,'' ``you can get 
there faster if you buy brand X or brand Y,'' ``for 60 seconds maybe 
you are better off with brand A or brand B or C.'' So there is an 
effort to go faster to get someplace, and maybe pay for that luxury 
with one's life or the life of one's loved one.
  So that is the situation, Mr. President. I think that I am probably a 
lonely minority on this matter. I just cannot, in good conscience, vote 
for legislation that will cause the kind of injury and pain that this 
bill will cause. I am going to vote no and strongly encourage my 
colleagues to do the same. And, Mr. President, I repeat once more, that 
I am for the investments in our infrastructure.
  I do not think that there have been stronger advocates than this 
Senator from New Jersey. I was chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee in Appropriations for some years and was always looking 
for ways to increase investment in infrastructure, get rid of the 
congestion on our highways, help clean the air that we breathe, invest 
in all types of transportation systems, rail and aviation and highways, 
to try and help our country be more efficient, improve the productivity 
in this very competitive world in which we live. But I could never, 
never participate in decisions that say, ``OK, perhaps we'll get there 
faster, perhaps we'll be able to move our missions from one city to 
another in a little more rapid fashion. There may be some life and limb 
lost along the way, but we'll get there faster.'' That is not, in my 
view, the way to make progress.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to say to our distinguished 
colleague that I am very sympathetic to many of the points he expressed 
here today. As I said earlier on the floor, I was not in favor of the 
speed limit provision. Indeed, at each juncture I feel that I cast my 
vote on the side of safety. But, of course, as the manager of the 
conference I feel the bill has many vital provisions for the United 
States transportation system. I must go forward as vigorously as I can 
and support it. And I am sure my colleague understands that.
  But, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey 
for taking his time here to come over and really address these issues 
very carefully, very thoroughly.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend and 
colleague from Virginia, few have the respect that he engenders in this 
body because he is very serious about the things that he does. I really 
enjoy working with him on so many issues. Here we simply have a kind of 
a divergence, if I might use the expression, of the road because, while 
I agree it is a good bill, it has many, many advantages to it in terms 
of the size of investment in our infrastructure, in terms of making 
certain that there are conditions met in the engineering and the 
construction of these roads that help achieve some measure of safety, 
of improving our bridges and the infrastructure of our vehicle 
transportation system--and I know very well that the Senator from 
Virginia has no less a concern about life and safety than do I. It is 
perhaps a change in perspective.
  I remember so vividly that horrible accident that took place with an 
intoxicated driver, a little girl and her mother waiting for a school 
bus not too long ago in Virginia. I know we have had his cooperation on 
all measures related to driving while intoxicated, getting rid of the 
drunk driver, getting them off the road. So we differ here, but we 
differ with respect to an evaluation that each of us has to make. And I 
thank the Senator for his ever-abiding cooperation on matters that we 
work on together, serving on the same committee.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. 
Indeed, it is a matter of grave concern to this Senator as well as 
others. The simple fact of the matter is, 65 Members of the U.S. Senate 
voted to make a decision as to the 55-mile speed limit. Many of them--
for example, the Presiding Officer comes from a State which has vast, 
vast distances with a very low habitation rate on those routes, very 
low traffic. Indeed, I think his State is one that can fairly argue in 
favor of some flexibility for Governors as it relates to speed limits.
  I hope the Senator from New Jersey would join me in making an appeal 
to the Governors to take into consideration all aspects very seriously 
as they begin to make the adjustments in the several States.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to my friend from Virginia, who knows this 
country so very well, I know he has traveled through and to New Jersey 
on occasion, the most densely populated State in the country, my 
precious home, and also has a major north-south highway called the New 
Jersey Turnpike.
  I am pleased to note that our Governor has made a statement that she 
intends to continue having the speed limits generally in the area that 
they are, given the need to make a choice. But anyone on that highway 
who sees these giant trucks bearing down on them, I do not care how 
steely one's nerves are, the fact of the matter is that it is not 
pleasant to be caught in the wind tunnel that these trucks make 
sometimes as they pass at 75, 80 miles an hour.
  So, whether it is in Wyoming with its beautiful mountains and 
spaciousness, or the State of New Jersey, the fact is that speed is 
something that concerns us all, whether it is marginally higher in the 
State of Wyoming--I note here it has a higher level of speed on its 
highways--the fact of the matter is, whether it is a far western 
sparsely populated State, they treasure lives just as much as any of us 
in the more crowded, densest parts of our country.
  But we are in a situation now where we are making a decision about a 
bill. I am not unrealistic when I look at the vote count that took 
place and saw that we lost the vote on this by 64 to 36. You might call 
me a sore loser in this case, but I believe in the fight that I took up 
and I hope we can do something about it. This is, after all, a 
conference bill. This was a meeting of the House and Senate conferees 
and they agreed to the policy that exists in the bill.
  Perhaps the Senator from Virginia offers a point of some salvation 
here in that he urges Governors to be as mindful of safety as they can 
be as they review their speed limits on their roads.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague and 
member of the Environment Committee, 

[[Page S17214]]
and I take note he is the ranking member on the Transportation 
Subcommittee of Appropriations. As such, he has invested a great deal 
of his Senate career in the area of transportation and can speak with 
considerable authority on this matter.
  We do, indeed, urge Governors, and I repeat again and again, the need 
for senior citizens' concerns to be taken into consideration when these 
highway issues are decided by the several Governors.
  I would like to turn to another matter now. Yesterday's Washington 
Post carried a report about this bill, and in the last paragraph, there 
was reference to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
  Mr. President, I wish to provide a clarification, which I think is 
needed for that report yesterday. And that is this conference report 
response to the urgent Federal--may I underline Federal--need to move 
forward on a replacement facility for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial 
Bridge.
  That bridge links Virginia and Maryland. It is the only bridge--and I 
repeat, only bridge--in the United States of America, so far as I know, 
absent a military facility or other Federal property, owned by the 
Federal Government. It is an absolute essential connector between the 
two States, and particularly as it relates to that connector 
facilitating commercial traffic. An enormous number of trucks pass over 
that bridge every day.
  I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance to this entire region 
to have that bridge in first-class operating condition and safety 
otherwise, because if for any reason that bridge became unusable prior 
to its projected lifespan--and I will address that momentarily--it 
would cause gridlock, traffic jams in the Washington metropolitan area 
unlike anything we have ever seen before.
  So that is why this Senator took it upon himself to work towards 
laying a foundation to solve the problems associated with that bridge. 
It certainly should not be put in any category of pork. As a matter of 
fact, I carefully put it in the bill so that what funds would be 
available come from another source rather than any specific earmarking 
of funds in this bill.
  The proposal that I drafted and placed in the conference report puts 
forward and accomplishes three major objectives. First, it offers an 
opportunity for the Federal Government to transfer ownership of the 
bridge to a regional authority established by Virginia, Maryland, and 
the District of Columbia, thereby relieving the Federal Government of 
sole responsibility for this facility in future years.

  Second, it provides a framework that will stimulate additional 
financing to facilitate the construction of the alternative identified 
in an environmental impact statement which is still in the process of 
being worked on.
  Third, with less than 10 years of useful life remaining on the 
existing bridge, this approach addresses the need to provide for the 
safety of the traveling public and for the efficient flow of commercial 
traffic.
  Now, I said 10 years. I have knowledge of an engineering report that 
is now being reviewed in the Department of Transportation, and that 
engineering report may, once it passes its final review and made 
public, it may have an impact to reduce those 10 years. That is of 
grave concern.
  Further, this conference gives authority to the Federal highways to 
use existing administrative funds to continue rehabilitation of the 
existing bridge. That was absolutely essential, Mr. President, for 
parts of the bridge which from time to time become unworkable, and to 
complete the environmental work preparing for decisions which will 
eventually result in a new bridge or a tunnel or whatever the experts 
come up with.
  As I said, recent safety inspections reveal conditions of the bridge 
are much more severe than the earlier reports. We will await the public 
disclosure of that engineering study and safety study which is working 
its way through the Department of Transportation at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that such time as the distinguished 
Senator may require--I see 5 minutes--be drawn equally from that time 
under the control of the distinguished Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my good friend 
and colleague from Virginia. On February 16 of this year, I joined with 
Senator Warner, my distinguished colleague, with Senator Baucus, 
Senator Chafee, and others in introducing S. 440, the National Highway 
System Designation Act of 1995.
  From my standpoint, the NHS is a key component of the changes for 
which we fought so hard in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act. The NHS will demonstrate our commitment to a modern 
national system of high quality interconnected highways, the step 
beyond interstates, the next phase, the future for transportation in 
America.
  The good thing about NHS is that it was developed from the bottom up. 
It was developed with input from those agencies at the State and local 
level who best know the traffic needs in their area. In my case, 
obviously, the State of Missouri, that was the Missouri Highway and 
Transportation Department. They coordinated with metropolitan planning 
organizations, regional planning agencies, highway groups and local 
officials to determine the highway priorities of the State.
  Mr. President, if you have ever followed the process of determining 
where a highway should go, telling one city that it will get it and two 
other cities they will not get that particular highway, you know how 
much work that is. But it is work best done by the State and the 
locally responsible agencies. Frankly, it saves the Federal Government 
a lot of headache and keeps them out of a job that they probably do not 
know how to do as well as the Federal Government and cannot do as well.

  I think this is a great example of cooperation between Federal, 
State, and local governments. We ought to encourage and continue this 
priority.
  There are also some things that we have in the measure that are very 
important, I think, to all Americans who are concerned about good 
transportation--the intermodal connections. And we will be presenting a 
colloquy on the floor. It is vitally important, if we have these 
wonderful new highway systems, that they be able to plug into the 
airports, the ports, the rail facilities. Let us make sure that our 
entire transportation system works together.
  Now, as you take a look, on a State-by-State basis, I am sure that 
every Member who has any kind of highway transportation --and this is 
almost all States--some have more, some have less. In Missouri, we have 
great need for highways, as do other States like ours. It is 
particularly important because Missouri and Missourians need access for 
every community of any size to a modern, safe highway designed for 
high-volume traffic. We need high-quality roads that connect 
communities within our State in a grid and connect up similar roads in 
States adjacent to us, all the way to the markets which others now 
dominate because they already enjoy such access.
  For my State, the National Highway System is about 4,500 miles of our 
most economically important roads, which carry almost half of all motor 
vehicle traffic and the vast majority of heavy truck traffic. It is our 
map to future economic development. On its signing into law, this 
measure will bring an estimated $156 million for Missouri in this 
fiscal year--a first step in building for the future, and a vitally 
important economic development project in and of itself.
  I extend my very special and most sincere thanks to Senator Warner, 
Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and their staffs, who have worked with 
my office very closely, and with me, not only providing leadership on 
this whole measure, but providing a response to particular needs that 
we have identified--and I mentioned intermodal connectors, inspection 
and maintenance, and designating I-35 as a high priority corridor. The 
assistance of these leaders of the Senate and their staffs was 
invaluable.
  Now we ought to urge the President to sign this legislation as soon 
as possible, so that my State, Missouri, and other States will no 
longer have to 

[[Page S17215]]
wonder about their highway funding. Senator Warner and I have fought 
for a long time to make certain that everyone understands the 
importance of highways. The legislation that he championed and which he 
has brought to the floor today will be the backbone of the national 
transportation network in the 21st century. It will affect every 
American, directly and indirectly, by increased economic growth, job 
creation, and reduction in congestion levels. I offer my sincerest 
congratulations to you for not only meeting the obstacles you 
confronted in accomplishing this legislation, but in overcoming 
successfully those obstacles.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I think 
those of us that serve with him on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, where he is a very valued member, recognize that he is the 
foremost expert on intermodal connectors--a subject that defies a lot 
of our imaginations as to how some of these things are laid out and 
work. But they are very essential, Mr. President, to the modern highway 
system. He has taken the time to become an expert.
  Mr. President, I also note the presence on the Senate floor of the 
distinguished chairman of the House committee, Mr. Shuster from 
Pennsylvania, who was my working partner throughout the conference. As 
I said earlier, neither of us blinked. We both worked in a very 
constructive way to reach a compromise, which was essential between the 
two Chambers. I am confident that, in a fair and objective view of this 
conference report, it will be regarded as a step forward in the 
interest of this country.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks about the 
Highway Bill conference report we are considering today. The Highway 
Bill is so very critical for my State of Wyoming. We need to complete 
action on this legislation very soon in order that funds can be 
released for badly needed projects in all the States.
  In the west our highways have become more and more important as we 
have observed the effects of airline deregulation and the reduction in 
rail service in our rural States. Airline deregulation has led to a 
dramatic decrease in the number of carriers and flights into Wyoming 
and we have nearly lost all Amtrak service. So the interstate and State 
Highways System was and is--and always will be our great lifeline.
  Because highways are so very important to us the State of Wyoming has 
proposed to add three significant road segments to the National Highway 
System in order to link several other primary and secondary highways. 
The Wyoming delegation has contacted the Federal Highway Administrator 
regarding this proposal and we trust he will give it every proper 
consideration.
  When people travel in Wyoming, for the most part they drive--and they 
usually drive for long distances. We have highways that stretch for 
miles with no habitation at all in between. It is understandable that 
we are so ``put off'' by a national speed limit. I am so pleased to see 
that the conference agreement repeals the national speed limit. I think 
that the individual States are quite able to set speed limits that 
provide for a safe speed given local conditions. The same holds true 
for seat belt laws and helmet laws. I believe the States are able to 
determine on their own if they want these laws and how they should be 
administered without the intrusion of the Federal Government and the 
threat of Federal sanctions.
  I trust we will swiftly pass this legislation and get it onto the 
President's desk so that we can get about the business of maintaining 
our present National Highway System and constructing the additional 
mileage as we require it. Those of us from the western States of high 
altitude and low multitude understand the real necessity of passing 
this important legislation and I would urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support the purposes of this bill, but 
oppose the unnecessary provisions not connected to its purpose.
  This bill is intended to designate a National Highway System map, and 
it does that. So far, so good.
  Particularly, it makes a necessary designation of a route for I-73 
and I-74 in South Carolina. I am very glad that we were able to work 
this out, and thank, my colleagues from Virginia, North Carolina, and 
Senator Thurmond for their cooperation on this point.
  However, there are unwise provisions in this conference report that 
have nothing to do with designating a map and everything to do with the 
safety of citizens using the roads. It is neither necessary nor wise to 
pass these provisions in order to do the basic designation jobs we need 
to do, and I will therefore vote against the conference report.
  First, this conference report creates a new pilot program that 
actually encourages trucking companies and companies that use trucks to 
deliver their goods to seek exemptions from Federal safety standards. 
These standards guarantee that drivers get enough rest, that basic 
equipment such as brakes and lights are functional, and that trucks are 
prepared with safety equipment like fire extinguishers. Senators may 
not realize that the page-one story on the most recent issue of 
``Transport Topics'' is the major contribution of driver fatigue to 
transportation accidents. In this environment, rolling back truck 
safety regulation is extremely unadvisable.
  Second, this bill invites States to roll back national speed limits. 
I understand that State officials are conscientious with regard to 
safety. I understand that speed limits are not always popular. However, 
we are sticking our heads in the sand if we think lifting Federal 
protections in this area will not kill people. Admittedly, we did not 
implement national standards with safety foremost in mind. Congress 
implemented a 55 mile per hour national speed limit in order to save 
fuel during the energy crisis. However, the record shows that death 
rates fell 16 percent. When we voted to raise speed limits in some 
areas to 65 miles per hour, death rates rose significantly. How much 
more experience do we need to determine whether lives are at stake? 
Again, we don't need a provision to roll back speed limits to designate 
a map, which is the purpose of this bill. It is an extraneous 
provision, and probably a popular one, except for those families that 
will end up getting a call from the emergency room due to our vote 
today.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of the 
conference report for S. 440, the National Highway System (NHS) 
Designation Act. With passage of this legislation over $95 million will 
be made available to the State of Minnesota for much needed highway 
renovation and construction work on the State's NHS roads.
  Many rural and urban intermodal routes are included in Minnesota's 
nearly 4,000 miles of NHS roads. Highway 2 runs from East Grand Forks 
on the North Dakota border to the port city of Duluth. Highway 53 runs 
from International Falls on the Canadian border to Cloquet, MN. Highway 
52 runs from Rochester to the Twin Cities. These are just some of the 
routes that will be eligible for funding under NHS. These are important 
trade and commerce routes throughout the State.
  Some of my colleagues have voiced their opposition to this bill 
because of its motorcycle helmet language. I was pleased to support the 
amendment to eliminate the penalties on States like Minnesota that do 
not require the use of motorcycle helmets that passed during 
consideration of S. 440 in June. The State of Minnesota has not had a 
helmet law for the last 10 years. However, since the inception of 
Minnesota's Rider Education and Public Awareness Program, motorcycle 
fatalities have actually decreased. This motorcycle safety education 
program has been essential in my State.
  I do have reservations about the language in this bill that 
eliminates a national speed limit. However, this is a conference report 
and in this body we are sometimes faced with taking some provisions we 
don't like in order to pass a bill that on the whole is a good one. The 
NHS bill is a good bill. It will free up funding that is greatly needed 
for roads all over our country.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the National Highway System (NHS) that 
would be designated by the conference report before us today is an 
important 

[[Page S17216]]
piece of our Nation's highway transportation system. I wholeheartedly 
support enactment of legislation to designate the National Highway 
System as directed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act (ISTAE). The $6.5 billion authorized by this legislation is a 
needed investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Just 
look around. There is a clear and pressing need for maintaining and 
upgrading our roads. In Massachusetts, for example, two-thirds of our 
bridges need replacement or repair.
  But as important as this investment is, it has been overshadowed in 
this legislation by other policy changes. The final product has strayed 
too far from the bill I supported when it passed the Senate, and it is 
therefore with regret that I am unable to support the conference 
report.
  One of the most important components of the bill that passed the 
Senate was the so-called Roth-Biden provision relating to our Nation's 
passenger rail system. Without the funding necessary to sustain Amtrak 
and without giving States the flexibility to spend their NHS funds to 
maintain passenger rail service, it is almost certain that many 
critical passenger rail routes--routes that offer important 
environmental, energy and traffic congestion benefits--will be 
eliminated permanently. The conferees did not include this provision in 
the report.
  Another provision that was included in the conference report but was 
not in the Senate bill relates to billboards. This matter was not 
considered in the Senate and reflects the worst type of special 
interest lobbying. It has no place in this bill.
  Yet another provision included in the conference report that was not 
part of the Senate's bill is the exemption for some three and one-
quarter million so-called ``unit trucks'' and their drivers from all 
Federal motor carrier safety regulations. The regulations cover 
activities ranging from driver hours-of-service restrictions and driver 
medical qualifications to safety equipment and maintenance requirements 
and roadside driver and equipment safety inspections. An exemption from 
safety regulations for these trucks, which are used frequently for 
delivery services, will seriously threaten safety on our roads. This 
class of truck is involved every year in 15,000 injury-producing 
accidents, and in 1994, was responsible for nearly 700 deaths. I fear 
we will witness more accidents as a result of the changes proposed in 
the conference report.
  Of equal concern is the repeal of the nationwide maximum speed limit, 
and the elimination of the Senate provision that sought to retain the 
limit for trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
expects this action will increase the number of Americans killed on our 
highways by about 4,750 each year, and cost taxpayers $17 billion 
annually in lost productivity, taxes and added health care costs. 
Maximum speed limits also produce important environmental benefits and 
savings in fuel consumption.
  There are several other provisions that concern me, including the 
repeal of the requirement that Federal highway contractors pay their 
workers the prevailing local wage. While some reasonable reform of the 
Davis-Bacon requirement should be explored, this legislation is not the 
appropriate venue.
  Mr. President, it is not clear whether the President will accept or 
reject this legislation. It is my hope that the President will allow us 
to revisit the designation of the National Highway System so that we 
may proceed with a simple designation that many members support and 
eliminate the controversial provisions that detract from the 
significance of this legislation.
  I am aware that the conference report is the product of many long 
hours of negotiation and I want to recognize the effort put into 
developing this legislation by Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus, who 
serves as the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. I appreciate the hard work they put into this 
legislation and would hope we have a chance to reconsider the 
Conference Report so that I might support it.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I reluctantly opposed the Conference Report 
on the National Highway System Act, S. 440.
  Back in February, I was pleased to join as an original cosponsor of 
S.440 since it would designate a National Highway System [NHS] to 
improve the Nation's key roads, comprising some 159,000 miles. The 
tenets of this bill were exemplary. In addition to providing some $6 
billion in highway funding to the States, S. 440 was intended to 
improve safety through our highway system, as well as increase mobility 
and economic productivity. As for my State of Rhode Island, this 
measure would bring more than $31 million in Federal highway funding to 
help upgrade 267 miles of key roadways, including all 70 miles of 
interstate highways.
  When the Senate debated S. 440 earlier this summer, I was pleased to 
strongly support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Delaware 
which would have enabled States to provide a small portion of their 
funds to assist passenger rail services. I am disturbed that that 
amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate by a 64-36 
margin, did not emerge from the Conference Committee.
  I am also deeply disturbed, Mr. President, by the fact that the 
Senate provision to require a national maximum speed limit for trucks 
and buses was also dropped from the conference report. As an original 
cosponsor of S. 440, I am further disturbed that the final version 
which emerged from conference repeals Federal regulations on motorcycle 
helmet laws, while also allowing States to erect new billboards on 
scenic highways.
  Mr. President, I am aware that this was an exceptionally contentious 
conference with the House and do not in any way criticize the actions 
of my Senate colleagues. Indeed, Senators Chafee and Warner, longtime 
champions of highway safety provisions, fought hard to negotiate a fair 
compromise between the two divergent bills. I commend them for their 
tenacity and huge efforts to craft a good bill which would enhance our 
safety standards.
  I fully recognize the overall importance of this bill and the need to 
get the necessary funding back to the States. However, given the 
substantive changes that occurred in conference, my earlier enthusiasm 
has waned as my concern about safety provisions increased. Mr. 
President, my preference would have been for a leaner, cleaner NHS 
bill, something we in this Chamber supported with vigor. I am certain 
that we will attempt again to deal with the issues important to the 
Senate such as the Amtrak trust fund, speed limits on trucks and buses, 
and other motor vehicular safety laws.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in 
the Record prior to the vote on S. 440.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong 
disagreement with this conference report. Although the bill does much 
good and is certainly necessary, it unfortunately contains numerous 
earmarks.
  While I understand that this is an authorization bill, the practical 
effect of these earmarks is to mandate spending on certain specific 
projects. It is as wrong here as it is when similar earmarks appear in 
appropriations legislation.
  I want to bring special attention to section 335, the innovative 
projects section of the bill. This section appears to be rife with 
earmarks.
  What are innovative projects? Well, Mr. President, they are nothing 
more than demonstration projects with a new--more innovative--name. The 
name, I would venture, has been changed because passing demonstration 
projects is no longer considered appropriate. I have introduced many 
amendments in this body to end all highway demonstration projects. Most 
recently, I offered an amendment that would ban any future 
demonstration projects. That amendment overwhelmingly passed the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, this section entitled ``Corrections to Innovative 
Projects'' would change existing law regarding numerous demonstration 
projects so that money can continue to be spent on projects in a 
certain select few States. For far too long, tax dollars sent to 
Washington by the citizens of most States are not returning to those 
States, but instead going to fund pet projects in other States. That is 
wrong, it is not fair, and it must be stopped.
  The problems associated with diverting highway trust fund money to 
pay 

[[Page S17217]]
for congressionally earmarked highway projects are well documented and 
have been debated before. I do not intend to belabor this point again 
now, except to note, however, that the practice continues.
  Mr. President, I would like to know what these so-called technical 
corrections actually entail. The report that accompanies this bill 
states the following:

       Senate Bill: The Senate bill makes a technical correction 
     to an innovative project in ISTEA.
       House Amendment: This provision makes a series of technical 
     amendments to innovative projects in ISTEA.
       Conference Substitute: The conference adopts the House 
     provision with additional modifications.

  Mr. President, to this Senator--someone who is not an expert in these 
programs, but who is expected to vote on this matter--this 
clarification is not sufficient.
  Mr. President, again I want to repeat, this is an important bill and 
I am sure passing it is vital. But what is more vital is balancing the 
budget and paying down the debt, and continuing the practice of 
earmarking demonstration projects is exactly the wrong thing to do at 
this time.
  In Reinventing Government, Vice President Gore  stated:

       GAO also discovered that 10 projects--worth $31 million in 
     demonstration funds--were for local roads not even entitled 
     to receive federal highway funding. In other words, many 
     highway demonstration projects are little more than federal 
     pork.

  The Reinventing Government report went on to say:

       Looking specifically at the $1.3 billion authorized to fund 
     152 projects under the 1987 Surface Transportation and 
     Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act, GAO found that ``most 
     of the projects . . . did not respond to States' and regions' 
     most critical federal aid needs.

  Unfortunately this bill demonstrates that the Congress continues to 
find innovative ways to promote its most favored projects.
  If a project has merit, it should be a priority under the individual 
State's transportation plan. Highway funding should be distributed 
fairly according to establish formulas so that taxpayer's dollars can 
be spent according to the priorities established with such great care 
and expertise by those best qualified to do so--the individual States.
  Mr. President, I hope that we will end the practice of earmarking 
money for demonstration projects or innovative projects or any other 
similarly earmarked projects. The time has come to change our ways.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying the National Highway System bill but I do so with 
reservations. While I support the need to move forward with badly 
needed construction funds for our Nation's highways including the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge, I am greatly disturbed by the weakening of 
highway safety laws.
  Our Nation's highways are absolutely vital to our infrastructure. 
This legislation will release approximately $100 million in badly 
needed highway funds for my own State of Maryland. These funds have 
already been factored into Maryland's highway program and need to be 
released in order to avoid slowdowns in construction. These funds will 
create construction jobs and help States meet the increasing costs of 
maintaining our highways.
  This legislation also authorizes the creation of a new interstate 
authority for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and authorizes funding for 
ongoing maintenance of the bridge. As a major artery serving Maryland 
and the entire National Capital region, the maintenance and eventual 
replacement of the Wilson Bridge must proceed without delay.
  However, I fail to see the justification for weakening highway safety 
laws, including motorcycle helmet laws. I believe that the Government's 
primary responsibility is to protect public health and safety. 
Delegating this responsibility to the States is not consistent with the 
Federal Government's role in regulating interstate highways or 
protecting public safety. How else can we guarantee that Marylanders 
will be safe driving in other States? The Federal Government should 
maintain its role in public safety matters, not delegate it to the 
States.
  While I am disappointed with the decision to weaken safety laws, I 
believe that we must move forward with the construction funds that 
Maryland and other States need to maintain and improve our highways. A 
reliable and well maintained infrastructure is a vital element in our 
ability to sustain economic growth and job creation into the next 
century. So, I will vote in favor of this legislation despite my 
opposition to weakening highway safety laws.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on the National Highway Systems bill. As my 
colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of infrastructure development, 
and am an especially strong supporter of the transportation 
infrastructure provided for in this bill which is so vital to my State. 
I appreciate the hard work of the Senators from Virginia, Rhode Island, 
and Montana, and I want to thank them and their staffs for their work 
in the difficult crafting of this legislation.
  This conference report will provide California with $569 million in 
much needed and long overdue Federal highway funding for essential 
transportation projects. Unfortunately, however, the public safety 
measures included in the legislation compel me to oppose this 
conference report.
  My specific concerns are with the repeal of the 55 miles per hour 
speed limit for automobiles, the lack of a national speed limit for 
trucks, and the repeal of Federal motorcycle helmet laws.


                     repeal of national speed limit

  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one 
third of all fatal crashes are speed related, and 1,000 people are 
killed every month in speed-related crashes.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicts 
elimination of the national speed limit on nonrural interstates and 
noninterstate roads will increase deaths by 4,750 annually at a cost of 
$15-$19 billion in additional insurance costs. This amounts to an 
increase of $2 billion per year in California.
  Almost 25 percent of all accidents in California are speed related. 
In California, the Highway Patrol reports that in 1994 there were 436 
fatal accidents and 48,877 injuries that were speed related.


                         speed limit for trucks

  During initial consideration of this bill, Senator Reid offered an 
amendment to retain a national speed limit on trucks. I supported this 
amendment because, according to the California Highway Patrol, the 
State of California has seen a steady reduction in the number 
accidents, injuries and fatalities relating to accidents involving 
trucks since 1989.
  In 1989, 647 people lost their lives and 17,703 people were injured 
in California as a result of 12,159 truck-related accidents.
  By 1994, 451 people were killed and 13,512 injured in California as a 
result of 9,225 truck-related accidents.
  I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues 
in the Senate to address the growing problems associated with making 
these big rigs safe.


                        motorcycle helmet repeal

  Since enactment of California's motorcycle helmet law in 1992, the 
California Highway Patrol estimates that motorcycle fatalities have 
decreased by 41 percent and motorcycle injuries have decreased by 35 
percent. I believe helmets save lives, and our Nation's highways will 
be a little less safe for all of us without their use.
  In closing, let me say that I cannot support legislation that will 
very likely put greater numbers of traveling public at risk. Were this 
only an infrastructure bill, it would very likely have my support. Only 
time can tell if my concerns will be realized. If they are, I hope this 
body will take immediate action to remediate some of the changes this 
bill makes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the National 
Highway System Designation Act. I add my support to this conference 
report though, with serious concerns. Concerns over the safety 
provisions I originally voted for in the Senate legislation have now 
been replaced by changes to the bill that could threaten the safety of 
our Nation's highways.
  Of foremost concern is the Senate provision to require a national 
maximum speed limit for trucks and buses. 

[[Page S17218]]
This important mandate was dropped from the conference report and will 
not only increase speeds for the oversized vehicles, but also increase 
their stopping distances.
  I am also concerned over a House provision that could exempt trucks 
weighing 10,000 to 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating from 
Federal safety rules including driver hours-of-service restrictions, 
driver medical qualifications, safety equipment and maintenance 
requirements, and roadside driver and equipment safety inspections.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that our State legislatures will step up 
and seek solutions to these shortcomings in an otherwise well 
intentioned piece of legislation. I was hesitant to support a 
conference report that retreats on issues of safety such as these, 
however the passage of this national highway system designation is 
essential to our Nation's very livelihood. A delay of implementation of 
this act will begin to cost my State of Washington approximately $120 
million over 2 years.
  The time to move this bill is long overdue. We can not lose this 
valuable opportunity to support 4 percent for the Nation's four million 
miles of public roads. This National Highway System will carry 40 
percent of the Nation's highway traffic and 70 percent of the truck 
freight traffic. One behalf of my State's Governor and secretary of 
transportation, I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report and 
continue our Nation's strong commitment to interstate commerce and 
mobility.


                         Flexibility for Amtrak

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the National 
Highway System conference report does not include the Senate-passed 
Amtrak passenger rail provision, which provided States the flexibility 
to use their Federal transportation dollars for passenger rail service. 
This proposal would have given States the ability to decide what 
transportation system best meets their needs and allocate their 
transportation funds accordingly. In a time of severe budget 
constraints at all levels of government, this provision would have 
empowered State and local officials to make the best use of the Federal 
resources provided to them.
  Sixty-four Senators supported the Amtrak passenger rail amendment 
when S. 440, the National Highway System designation bill, was debated 
on the Senate floor. Sixty-four Senators--from both sides of the aisle, 
representing both very rural States and congested urban States; 
chairmen of the committees who oversee aviation, highways, and mass 
transit--supported the provision, recognizing that States need more 
flexibility in the use of their transportation funds.
  The State of Oregon is currently involved in a situation requiring 
ample flexibility to retain an important element of Oregon's 
transportation infrastructure system. Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary 
Pena, Amtrak president Downs and I are working together to develop a 
plan to keep the Cascadia train, which runs between Portland and 
Eugene, operating. The Cascadia has been an extremely successful 
passenger rail provider for Oregon and, unfortunately, it is scheduled 
to be terminated on December 31, 1995. Innovative proposals, such as 
the Amtrak passenger rail provision, would be extremely helpful in 
allowing Oregon and other States to meet their respective 
transportation needs.
  According to the most recently compiled U.S. Department of 
Transportation statistics, more than $15,800,000 in CMAQ funds were 
subject to lapse at the end of fiscal year 1995. It makes absolute 
sense to make these lapsed funds available to States for the operation 
of intercity passenger rail. Many other Federal programs that provide 
State allocations pool all unobligated funds at some point during the 
fiscal year and redistribute them to States who have projects cleared 
and awaiting funding. This would provide a solution to transportation 
challenges in many States and it is consistent with the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding priorities.
  The CMAQ program, created in ISTEA, provides an incentive to focus on 
transportation alternatives that reduce traffic congestion, improve air 
quality, and lower fuel consumption. These funds can be used on 
transportation programs, projects, strategies, or methods which will 
contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality 
standard, whether through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, the 
reduction of fuel consumption, or other means. Amtrak passenger rail 
service clearly meets this definition, and should be deemed an eligible 
use of CMAQ funds.
  Mr. President, although I am disappointed that the NHS designation 
conference report came back without the Amtrak passenger rail 
provision, I do not support a potential motion to recommit this 
conference report. However, I do want to express my sincere regret that 
the conference agreement does not include this important provision that 
would provide my State, and many others, with the needed flexibility to 
use their Federal transportation dollars in the most effective way 
possible.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support final passage of S. 440, the 
National Highway Designation Act. This legislation includes provisions 
that I had requested to help my State in the area of traffic congestion 
relief, air quality, and international trade.
  I wish to thank my chairman, Senator Chafee, our subcommittee 
chairman, Senator Warner, and our ranking minority member, Senator 
Baucus, for preserving the California provisions that I requested in 
the Senate bill.
  The most significant provision is the assistance provided for the 
Alameda transportation corridor, a project to consolidate three rail 
lines into a single 20-mile high-capacity highway and rail corridor 
serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The project is 
expected to generate 10,500 direct construction jobs. Today, more than 
25 percent of all U.S. waterborne, international trade depends on the 
ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to reach its market.
  The National Highway System Act will provide the Alameda 
transportation corridor the financing tools it needs to become southern 
California's linchpin to increased Pacific rim trade.
  Once the House passes this NHS bill, as expected, for the first time 
Congress will have recognized the corridor not as a series of 
individual intersection improvements, but as a single, high priority 
infrastructure project. The Alameda project will speed cargo along a 
corridor of uninterrupted rail and highway traffic between our national 
transportation network to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
  Federal highway funds can now be spent on a single program to 
eliminate 200 street and rail intersections.
   The NHS bill also designates the corridor as a high priority 
corridor under the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. That will make the project eligible for guaranteed Federal 
loans or other innovative financing options available to the Secretary 
of Transportation.
  Secretary Pena wrote to me last month, acknowledging that the Alameda 
corridor ``is an extremely important project that will benefit the 
entire Nation'' and committing to work with us ``to make the Alameda 
transportation corridor a reality.''
  Now that we have made the project eligible for the Secretary's 
revolving loan program, we are working closely with the administration 
to obtain seed money in the President's fiscal year 1997 budget in 
order to initiate this innovative financing program.
  This bill also ensures that California will continue to receive its 
share of transportation funds used to enhance air quality under the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, despite the improvements 
to air quality in the San Francisco Bay area.
  The San Francisco Bay area was recently upgraded from a non-
attainment area to a maintenance area for its air quality. Although the 
improvement is welcome news, under current law the area and the State 
would lose its CMAQ funding. The program provides funding to the States 
for local traffic improvements to relieve congestion and reduce air 
pollution in urban areas with poor air quality.
  I believe we should not penalize communities that improve air quality 
by eliminating much-needed funding. The air quality funds provide $15 
million each for BART rail car rehabilitation and Santa Clara County's 
light rail construction in the Tasman corridor, among other projects to 
reduce traffic emissions. 

[[Page S17219]]

  Another part of the bill that I requested would assist the seismic 
retrofit project for the Golden Gate Bridge. This language allows the 
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District to begin 
spending local funds now for the $175 million project to protect the 
famous bridge from earthquakes. When Federal funding is available in 
the future, the Federal Highway Administration will apply those funds 
spent now toward the 20 percent local match required for Federal 
funding.
  The NHS bill also includes two provisions that would redirect 
previously authorized spending for high-cost projects in Los Angeles 
and Long Beach to more practical projects that can be completed sooner.
  The first measure would help alleviate the gridlock that has occurred 
along Sepulveda Boulevard near the Los Angeles International Airport. 
In 1991, Congress authorized $8.95 million to develop alternative 
approaches to expanding the Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel that runs 
underneath the airport. However, an analysis completed last year 
indicated expansion of the tunnel would require considerable more 
funding. Less costly, short-term measures were sought to reduce the 
commuter and airport traffic using the tunnel.
  The final conference agreement includes my provision to redesignate 
the funds for the following projects: $3.5 million for the airport's 
central terminal ramp access project, $3.5 million for Aviation 
Boulevard widening south of Imperial Highway, $1 million for Aviation 
Boulevard widening north of Imperial Highway and $950,000 for 
transportation systems management improvements near the tunnel.
  A second provision would use $7.4 million previously authorized to 
construct carpool lanes on Interstate 710 in Long Beach for downtown 
Long Beach access ramps to separate city traffic from the heavy trucks 
carrying port cargo. This project will enhance safety at the terminus 
of I-710.
  There are provisions in this final bill that I do object to. I am 
very concerned and disappointed that this bill rolls back gains we have 
made in this Nation to curb the carnage on our highways. The bill ends 
the maximum national speed limit for all vehicles. After the national 
maximum speed limit was established in 1974, we saved 9,000 lives.
  The final bill also would effectively exempt small to mid-sized 
trucks from safety regulations, a House provision on which the Senate 
never held a hearing.
  Finally, the bill was stripped of the Senate amendment to grant to 
States the option of using its flexible category of highway funds for 
Amtrak operations. I am surprised at the House opposition to this 
amendment to grant States more flexibility in funding transportation 
programs. These funds already can be used for mass transit and bike 
paths. Including Amtrak only makes sense and at a time when Amtrak 
service cutbacks are leaving commuters and intercity passengers 
stranded on station platforms. This modest assistance could be nothing 
but helpful.
  I have a long record in support of strong transportation safety 
measures, from highways to runways. However, realistically, a vote 
opposing final passage of the NHS would not change the outcome. I know 
Senator Chafee shared my concern about the safety provisions and the 
loss of the Amtrak amendment. About two-thirds of the Senate had voted 
to eliminate the national speed limit, and if Senator Chafee could not 
win on the Amtrak amendment in conference, then it could not be saved.
  Nevertheless, despite these flaws, passage of the National Highway 
System Designation Act is crucial. About $6.5 billion in highway have 
been withheld from the States since October 1. California will receive 
$569 million once this act is passed. This money is urgently needed to 
help relieve our backlog in road maintenance projects.
  We will be reauthorizing the highway bill in 2 years. At that time, I 
hope we can reconsider these issues important to preserving the safety 
of our traveling public.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time to the distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma as he may require, drawing it jointly from that 
under the control of the Senator from Montana and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from 
Virginia, as well as my colleague and friend from Montana, for their 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I wish to advise 
the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Ohio that, in all 
likelihood, following the remarks by the one or two Senators now 
joining us on the floor, we will turn to those allocations of time 
under the time agreement. In their absence, a quorum call would have to 
be charged against those time periods.
  I yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Again, I thank my friends and colleagues from Virginia 
and Montana for bringing this important bill to the floor. I hope our 
colleagues will strongly support it and that the President will sign 
it. It will mean jobs in our States. It will help rebuild our national 
road infrastructure. I compliment them.
  The reason I come to the floor today is to speak specifically on the 
issue on speed limits, because I have heard some of our colleagues 
imply that this bill increases speed limits. It does not do that. What 
this bill does do is insert a provision that myself, Senator Burns, and 
others, support. It would eliminate the Federal penalty mandating a 
national limit. It does not say we eliminate speed limits.
  I happen to favor speed limits. But I favor States setting them 
instead of the Federal Government. Some people assume that we are 
automatically going to have higher speed limits all across the country. 
I do not know that that will be the case. Undoubtedly, in many cases, 
you will have increased speed limits, if the State legislatures, 
working with their Governors, make that decision.
  So it is really not a question of whether or not we are going to have 
speed limits or what the speed limits will be. It is a question of who 
defines what the speed limits will be. What many of us are saying, and 
what this legislation says, is we are going to repeal the Federal 
penalty. This Federal penalty says if you do not comply with the 
national speed limit, we are going to withhold some of a State's 
funds--funds which rightly belong to the State.
  I am amazed sometimes that some people think the Federal Government 
knows best, so the Federal Government is going to set speed limits. I 
disagree. The Federal Government is going to set other criteria. What 
we are saying in this legislation is that the proper body or electorate 
to make this decision is at the State level. We have heard a few people 
talk about the 10th amendment, but the 10th amendment states: ``The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.''
  That is exactly what we are doing in this legislation--reserving to 
the States the power to set the speed limits in their States. The 
appropriate speed limits in Oklahoma or Montana may be quite different 
than the speed limits in Delaware or Rhode Island. So it makes sense if 
the elected representatives of those individual States would set those 
speed limits. They know the road conditions better than we do on the 
Federal level. And 55 may be too fast. That is the national speed 
limit. It may be too fast, or it may be too high in some areas. The 
State should have the authority to set it. Maybe 55 is not high enough 
in some other areas. Let the States decide.
  Some of my colleagues assert that it is going to result in a large 
increase in fatalities. That, I think, misses the question. I think the 
States, and the elected officials in the States, are just as concerned 
about the safety and health of their constituents--maybe more than we 
are on the Federal level. They are concerned. They know those stretches 
of roads that have a higher number of fatalities, and they are the ones 
responsible for fixing them. It may be that, on a rural interstate, 55, 
65, or 70 miles an hour may be safe. But it may have some winding areas 
that maybe should be set at 40 miles an 

[[Page S17220]]
hour. The State should know that, and they should make that 
determination.
  We should not have a Federal law that says nowhere in the country can 
it exceed 55. We passed a law in 1987--and I was a sponsor--that on 
rural interstates limits could go to 65 miles an hour. Even when we 
passed that, my argument was, really, it should not be set by the 
Federal Government. It should be set by the State governments. This is 
an area where, really, State and local governments should have 
priority.
  Again, I want to take issue with the fact that some people say there 
are going to be thousands of more deaths or fatalities if this bill 
passes as it is. I take issue with that. One, I believe they are 
looking at a study that assumes that all roads that are now 55 will be 
going to 65 or 70. I do not think that is the case. You have a lot of 
States that probably had higher speed limits that now are at lower 
speed limits. They may leave them there. That is fine. I could really 
care less. I think it should be their responsibility, the State's 
responsibility. And to assume that all of the highways in the country 
that are now at 55 will be increasing to 65 or 70 would be a mistaken 
assumption. But the States should be the ones that would have that 
responsibility. I just happen to believe that Governors and legislators 
in those States are just as concerned, maybe even more than we are for 
their constituents' safety.
  I think they will keep safety in mind when they make those decisions. 
They are the duly elected body of the people from that State and 
hopefully will be responsive to their wishes and to their safety needs.
  I am delighted that this legislation finally takes away this Federal 
mandate, this Federal law that says if you do not comply with 
``Government-knows-best, Washington, DC,'' we will withhold some of 
your money.
  I am delighted we finally have repeal of the Federal mandate. We did 
not repeal speed limits, we had the repeal of the national Federal 
speed limit, and now we will be returning speed limit decisions to the 
rightful level of Government, and that is to State and local 
authorities.
  Again, I compliment my friends and colleague, and I wish to 
compliment the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership in passing 
this bill as well. I am delighted it is on the floor. I hope the 
President will sign it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the participation of the able 
Senator from Oklahoma. We may have some differences of view on this 
particular subject, but we hope that the accident rates do not dictate 
the Federal Congress will once again have to intervene and readdress 
this issue.
  The Senator from Wyoming, a distinguished member of our committee, 
seeks recognition, and at such time as he gains the floor Senator 
Baucus and myself yield such time as the Senator from Wyoming may 
require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator from 
Montana jointly have 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank you for that advisory.
  For those Senators during the course of the vote that might wish to 
acquaint themselves with the national highway map, we have arranged for 
it to be placed in the Vice President's office jut off the Chamber. I 
urge Senators to take a look.
  I yield such time to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I listened carefully to what the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma had to say. He has been a long 
battler for the States being able to set these speed limits. He 
prevailed overwhelmingly on the floor of this Chamber.
  I did not agree with him, but the vote was clearly in his favor. I 
just hope he is right. I hope he proves the rest of us to be absolutely 
wrong. I hope that the speed limits will be monitored carefully by the 
States.
  I think there is a lot in what he says in that the States are 
concerned about highway deaths. I know when I was Governor, every year 
I paid a great deal of attention to the deaths on our highways and 
sought to bring it down. Whether all the Governors spend time on 
matters like that, as I did, I do not know. I just hope he is right. I 
hope a year from now we can say to the Senator from Oklahoma, ``You 
were right and we were wrong.'' If so, I would be very, very pleased. 
Here is a case where I would be glad to be proven wrong.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman in his 
observation.
  I think, in fairness, we should put in context here that the Federal 
highway limits were put on as a consequence of a very severe energy 
crisis that faced the United States. It was viewed then as an energy 
conservation measure.
  Once they were placed as a matter of law, we did see, fortunately, a 
very rapid reduction in accident rates across America. So that was an 
unanticipated fallout of this.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and yield such time as 
he may require, bearing in mind that the managers have about 7 minutes 
left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Virginia is up 
and the Senator from Montana has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if I might just take a couple minutes off my 
time while the time allocation for the Senator from Wyoming is being 
considered.
  Would the Senator from Wyoming indulge us?
  Mr. THOMAS. I am happy to. I am not sure we have any time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will find the time for the Senator from 
Wyoming if he would be gracious enough to indulge the Senator.
  Could I inquire how much time the Senator from New Jersey has 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator from New Jersey be willing to take from 
his time and allocate 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would not object to the unanimous consent to allow 
an extra 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I will place that in the form of a unanimous-consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just wanted to respond to some of 
the comments that have recently in the last little while been made. I 
do not want to be harsh. I think we know around here despite the fact 
that occasionally this does look like fantasy land, wishing never makes 
it so. Law makes it so, votes make it so.
  That is what happens. Reality takes over. Thus, when we talk about no 
assurances that the States will rush to bump up their speed limits the 
minute they have this permission, I point out something to those who 
would believe it, that there are several States--nine in particular--
that have already in law a requirement that once the Federal speed 
limits are removed, and I address this to my distinguished colleague, 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator 
Chafee, once the law is removed, the Federal speed limit is removed, 
there are nine States that immediately bump up by virtue of existing 
statutes.
  I am pleased to name them. It does not matter. Just for edification, 
I will: Montana, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 
Missouri, Texas, and California. These are States that already 
committed that once the rules are off from the Federal Government, they 
immediately move up. There are 28 other States that are States that 
have bypassed actions, indicate that they are anxious to get the speed 
limits moved up. They are States which increase the maximum speed limit 
on rural interstates within 6 months of the 1987 congressional 
enactment allowing 65 miles an hour.
  It is fairly easy to recognize, Mr. President, because the States 
that are outlined in blue, it is a fair number, and when combined with 
the nine States, gives us a total of 37 States that are likely to move 
ahead with their speed limit increases.
  I just put that in the Record, Mr. President, to indicate that as 
much as we hope, as much as we wish, we would like to see constraints 
on speed limits, it ``ain't'' going to happen, to put it crudely. So 
the mayhem that will follow that I projected--and I do not want to be 
the forecaster of gloom and doom around here, but I want to be 
realistic about what is going to happen when this bill becomes law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the Senate 

[[Page S17221]]
  today is considering the conference report on Senate 440, a bill that 
will designate the highway system. The States have been waiting for a 
good long time now, waiting since October 1, for this bill to pass, so 
that the $6.5 million in highway funds--which, of course, belongs to 
the States--can be distributed and used for the purpose for which the 
drivers and purchasers have paid.
  I particularly want to recognize Senators Warner, Chafee, Baucus, and 
others who have worked very hard to bring this bill to the floor. I 
appreciate their leadership and appreciate the opportunity to have 
served on that committee.
  I support this bill for a number of reasons. Not only is the bill 
important, of course, to all of us in our highway systems, but 
particularly important from the economic and job creation perspective. 
It also, it seems to me, sets a direction for the transportation needs 
of our country and does so well into the next century.
  In addition, I am pleased with some of the philosophical changes that 
are found in this bill. This proposal increases State flexibility in a 
number of areas.
  Let me just say, philosophically I agreed with that and I find it 
difficult to hear people constantly talk about the fact that we really 
ought to run it from here because we do not trust those rascals in the 
State. I do not understand that. I have a hard time with that.
  This bill permits a State to increase the transfer of funds from 
bridge accounts to the National Highway System and Surface 
Transportation Program categories, eliminates the Federal mandates that 
the States adopt Federal management systems, repeals some of the 
Federal mandates requiring the use of crumbed rubber asphalt--I happen 
to favor the idea--and to transfer to the State the question of 
mandatory helmet laws and certainly the maximum speed limit.
  I come from a large rural State, quite different from New Jersey, 
quite different from Rhode Island, in terms of our obligations to 
provide for transportation. I also served in the Wyoming legislature, 
and I have great confidence in that body's ability to determine and 
have as much interest in the safety of Wyoming drivers and others who 
drive through our State as does this body. That is really what it is 
all about. It is not a question of doing away with speed limits. It is 
a question of having the opportunity to tailor needs to different kinds 
of places, the opportunities to deal with the differences in the needs 
of New Jersey and the needs of Wyoming.
  So, there is a principle involved here. Obviously, our 100,000-square 
mile State with 450,000 people is quite different from New York, quite 
different from Connecticut. So we need to have the flexibility, in a 
union of this kind, to do that. This is a clear step away from the 
Washington-knows-best approach and I strongly endorse it. State leaders 
in Departments of Transportation do not need this constant oversight 
that we have had here.
  So, this is a good bill and one that needs to be passed in a timely 
fashion. It deserves strong support. It has had a great deal of input, 
a great deal of conversation from States, a great deal of communication 
with State Highway Departments and others. So I encourage all my 
colleagues to vote for the bill. I hope the President will sign it 
promptly so that the States can finally receive the money that does, 
indeed, belong to them.
  Mr. President, I urge quick passage of this bill and its quick 
movement through the White House and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are ready for the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the motion-- I will 
withhold sending it to the desk at the moment--that I intended to 
offer.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern and, quite 
frankly, disappointment that this conference report comes back to us 
without an important Senate provision that enjoyed very strong, 
bipartisan support in the Senate.
  On June 21, by a vote of 64 to 36, the Senate voted to give our State 
Governors the option to use some of their Federal highway funds on 
intercity rail, that is for Amtrak. It was a proposal that Senator Roth 
and I introduced, along with Senators Boxer, Chafee, Cohen, Jeffords, 
Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Moynihan, Murray, Specter, Pell, Snowe, and 
D'Amato.
  I point out to my colleagues that these are States with varying 
degrees of Amtrak service. As a matter of fact, the Governors of those 
States which have a limited amount of Amtrak service, have the greatest 
concern about being given this additional flexibility. The bottom line 
here is Amtrak has, as the distinguished chairman of the committee 
knows, out of necessity made some significant cuts in its operations 
over the last couple of years, in a sense downsized the number of 
trains it runs as well as the number of personnel that it has. The 
result of that has not affected, much, the Northeast corridor, where 
people have significant access to rail. But it has affected States like 
Montana, it has affected States like Vermont, it has affected States 
like Mississippi, because they have lost trains because we could not 
justify their cost based on these new, incredible restrictions placed 
upon Amtrak.
  I might note, by the way, although the reigning expert is on the 
floor--the Senator from Rhode Island--that I do not know of any 
national rail system in the world, as a passenger rail system, that 
runs on operating costs, on the money that it takes in. Everybody comes 
over and my conservative and liberal colleagues--there are not many 
liberals left--but my conservative colleagues come back from Japan and 
Germany or Europe and they say, ``Boy, we rode on these trains and they 
were something else. Why do we not have trains like that?''
  They subsidize them, like we do the airlines. They subsidize them, 
like we do the highways. None of them make it based on the fare 
everyone pays. There would not be any airlines running, we could not 
afford any ticket, if the fare we paid did not cover the air traffic 
controllers, covered the runways, covered the towers, covered the 
places we land. They are subsidized. But, somehow--I am not speaking to 
anybody on the floor here in particular, because I know the Senator 
from Rhode Island is a champion of rail as well as highways--somehow, 
we look at the Amtrak ticket and say, ``Boy, they are really 
subsidized,'' because we have a direct appropriation and everybody can 
see it.
  At any rate, what happened was in a number of States, like the State 
of Montana, officials said, ``Look, there are one or two trains that 
run across Montana, that go across the Northwest to the State of the 
Presiding Officer, and we cannot justify, based on passenger load, 
keeping that train going.'' Or the Vermonter, that goes up into 
Vermont, or the Crescent, that goes down to New Orleans and goes 
through Mississippi. It is kind of hard when you say you have to go out 
and cut--they are the ones which are cut.
  So all of a sudden Republican and Democratic Governors, like the 
Republican Governor from Pennsylvania, Governor Ridge, a former 
Congressman, said, ``Wait a minute, we need these trains going across. 
Not the ones going to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and so on and so 
forth,'' the Governors of these other, various States agreed. So what 
we did was we came along with nothing particularly radical here. The 
amendment I am talking about, the flexibility amendment, was not 
designed to fix every problem that Amtrak has. It was not designed to 
make Amtrak solvent. It was not designed to solve any intercity rail 
problem that is going to exist because there are larger problems and 
there are larger costs. But, by providing the States some flexibility 
in allocating their Federal transportation funds, although not intended 
to be a final solution to Amtrak's problems, it was a partial solution 
to the problems the States had, the Governors had. So, increasing the 
State flexibility was an important goal.
  By the way, under the leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator 
Moynihan and the votes of the vast majority of Members here, we made a 
significant departure, a necessary but significant departure a couple 
of years ago when we passed the new highway bill, the so-called ISTEA. 

[[Page S17222]]

  What that said was basically this. If, in a State, you decide to 
abate the air quality problems you have, or to deal with congestion, or 
to deal with rural transportation problems, out of your Highway Trust 
Fund moneys that you get you can go out and you can, instead of 
building a new lane of a highway, you can subsidize a bus or you can 
subsidize a bus route from Dover, DE, to Dagsboro, DE, instead building 
a new highway. It is cheaper and makes more sense.
  The leaders on this have been Senators Chafee and Moynihan. They said 
it does not make any sense to insist that States have to pour more 
concrete. They can say, ``OK, we want to put a bike path in. We can 
spend money for that, or for buses, if it is going to improve the air 
quality, instead of more lanes for cars.''
  It gave flexibility to the States. It was only a portion of the 
highway money they received. So all this amendment did, and I think the 
reason why it enjoyed such wide support, was to just logically extend 
that flexibility. The goal of the Senate amendment, which was dropped 
in conference, was not to shift the burden of passenger rail services 
in the States. It was to allow the States to have another alternative 
to deal with their problems.
  For some, this means a small portion of their highway money--I say 
that because to use the vernacular the cement and asphalt guys out 
there said, ``Oh, my. They are going to be able to spend money on 
something other than laying concrete or laying down asphalt.'' They can 
still lay billions of dollars worth of concrete and asphalt across this 
Nation under the flexibility amendment.
  This is not a backdoor to do away with the highways. This is a 
provision to give flexibility to the States. And it does not require an 
additional penny. It just says the States can use some of it. Instead 
of building a bicycle path, they can say in Vermont, we want to keep 
that train that comes up into Vermont from the Northeast corridor, and 
brings us millions of dollars worth of skiers every year, improves our 
economy, and has a significant impact on health of our State. We want 
to use some of our highway money to pay Amtrak to say, ``Look, put that 
train back on. We will pay for it. The rails are already there. We will 
pay for it.''
  Because they understand this, the Governors of our States are 
actively seeking to keep Amtrak running. The Republican Governors from 
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and the Democratic Governors, 
also, feel very strongly about this.
  The Senate language dropped in conference would have provided those 
Governors the means, if they chose, to support Amtrak routes important 
to their States. Specifically, it would have made Amtrak an eligible 
use for funds from two areas--the so-called STP fund, Surface 
Transportation Program, which is known as STP around here; funds to be 
used for most kinds of roads and highways, as well as capital costs for 
bus terminals, car pool projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 
hike and bike trails. Right now, under the Surface Transportation 
Program, you can expend money, if you are Governor, from your highway 
trust fund to build a bus terminal. You can spend your money from the 
highway trust fund to build a bike or hike trail, a bicycle path, or a 
pedestrian path. You can do all of that. You can even spend the money 
for promoting car pooling, all of which makes sense.
  But the one thing you cannot do is you cannot say--even though you 
have a railroad track running through your State where you want it to 
go--Amtrak, if you can put an extra train on there, we will pay you for 
that. Why? It makes no sense.
  So the Senate language added intercity rail--translated, Amtrak--to 
that list of things that Governors can do consistent with the aims of 
the program to support and fully fund an integrated transportation 
system. Integrated means highways. It means buses. It means subways. It 
means Amtrak, if this were to prevail. It gives them flexibility.
  The second thing the Governors could do, in addition to going to the 
so-called STP fund--is go to the congestion mitigation and air quality 
fund, or, the so-called CMAQ fund. CMAQ is an innovative program 
designed by Senators Moynihan and Chafee which supposed to help urban 
areas come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. President, we all know in most of our States where we are told 
that, if the air quality is not particularly good, the Governor is told 
to take the necessary steps in order to meet the Clean Air Act 
standards. This gives the Governor an opportunity when managing a 
growing State, a growing community and a growing urban area, to say, 
OK, one of the ways I can deal with increased congestion is, instead of 
putting more cars on the highway, to increase intercity rail.
  Let us imagine what would happen if we shut down Amtrak in the 
Northeast corridor? Those of you, the tourists here today, traveling I-
95 from here up to Boston through the States of Maryland, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, can you 
imagine? How many more lanes can we add on to I-95 in order to just 
transport people up and down? How many more airplanes can we add? We 
are having problems with airports. There is so much traffic on the east 
coast they are talking about the State of Delaware and the Wilmington 
airport becoming an overflow facility for the Philadelphia airport.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Sure. I am delighted to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator mentions aviation and the problems, if we 
did not have Amtrak operating. The projection is that, if Amtrak were 
not operating, we would have 10,000 DC-9 flights a year more to 
accommodate the traffic that would come off of Amtrak.
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. President, that 
statistic makes the point. Two of the three people who know most about 
the transportation problems in this country are right here in the 
Chamber now, and the Senator from New Jersey is one of them. Ten 
thousand additional flights. We are having trouble keeping airports 
open during certain hours so people cannot have them interfere with 
their living standard and the quality of life. Where are they going to 
go, and why are we doing this? Why are we failing to make this small 
change in flexibility?
  I never impugn the motive of anybody on this floor. But I must tell 
you in my 23 years here I have not run across many lobbies that are 
more powerful than the highway lobby, than the cement folks and the 
asphalt folks. There is nothing bad about them. But I think they are 
being incredibly shortsighted here in terms of not allowing this 
flexibility. I think in the long run, in 2 years, or 10 years, the 
public is going to say, ``Enough, I do not want a 17-lane highway 
running by my house.''
  To combat this growing concern, Mr. President, these CMAQ funds, that 
the States receive as part of their highway funds, could be used for 
Amtrak, at the discretion of the Governors, if they chose to mitigate 
congestion and to carry the same number of people with less pollution 
and cars on the highways. Surely, this would be an appropriate use of 
those funds, a use currently denied the States.
  In addition to those provisions, Mr. President, this amendment would 
permit States to enter into interstate compacts to support the Amtrak 
services. For example, the Presiding Officer is from the great State of 
Washington. You cannot very well get a train to go to Washington coming 
from Chicago unless you get the folks in the Dakotas, Montana, and 
Idaho to let it get there. There is no other way to get it there. If 
they do not have the ability to come up with the funds to provide for 
that train coming through, then it is a problem.
  So it allows, if they so choose, the States in the Northwest to enter 
into a compact if they want those trains to move from Chicago to the 
State of Washington with more frequency. States come up with their own 
money, come up with the money they want out of their highway funds, if 
they decide to do so.
  In the long run the answer to Amtrak's financial problems are not 
solved by this amendment. It will come from clearly defined, dedicated 
sources of funds supporting capital means. That is the only way out for 
Amtrak.
  I must say that I am pleased to note that Senator Roth has taken an 
amendment that he and I supported, and has drafted just such a bill 
which 

[[Page S17223]]
has come out of the Finance Committee which he chairs. I look forward 
to working with him, and dealing with that bill on another occasion in 
the near future. It has to do with setting up a trust fund, a very 
small one, so that Amtrak will have the funds it needs for necessary 
capital improvements. The Senator from Montana supports that as well.
  But, Mr. President, this flexibility proposal was taken out I think 
for very shortsighted reasons--not for lack of support of Senator 
Chafee, who stood his ground as long as he could in this conference. It 
was dropped because the House was adamant in refusing to give the 
States the needed flexibility to manage their transportation needs the 
way they should do best. As a matter of fact, the chairman in the House 
on this committee, a gentleman from Pennsylvania, a very, very 
tenacious, very good Congressman, works very hard, even resisted to 
consent to the entreaties of his Governor telling them he needed 
this. And so I in no way am suggesting that the Senate did not try its 
best to hold this provision.

  The House just adamantly refused to give the States flexibility. So 
much for the revolution. So much for the devolution of power away from 
Washington to the States. Here we have an example on the limits of 
revolutionary fervor; it ends when the committee is threatened with a 
tiny, marginal loss of authority or it ends where important interests 
to the highway community decide they want it to end.
  The Senate language that was dropped would not spend one dime of 
additional State or Federal money--not one dime of additional money. It 
would not require the States to spend any funds on Amtrak, not a single 
penny, if they did not want to. It would not change any formula for 
distributing or allocating transportation funds among the States. It 
would not affect the amount of annual Federal transportation funds 
States now receive individually or in total.
  The bottom line is the Senate amendment simply permitted States to 
use funds they already qualify for in a way that is not currently 
permitted. Current restrictions on the use of Federal transportation 
funds would be removed and Governors around the country would be able 
to use those funds as they see fit, including in support of intercity 
rail services provided by Amtrak, if this amendment were to prevail. In 
very congested areas, particularly in urban corridors along the east 
and west coasts, but in other areas as well, adding more highways in 
certain areas is simply not an economic or environmental option. 
Keeping an Amtrak route open on existing rail right-of-way, which is 
much more cost effective and safer and cleaner than buying land to 
construct even one more lane on a major interstate highway, is the way 
to go. The increasing flexibility provided by the Senate amendment is 
fully consistent with the major goals of the national highway safety 
bill before us today and with ISTEA, the landmark legislation that 
calls for a National Highway System designation.
  The need for enhanced State flexibility is clear. I find it 
fascinating that my colleagues, some of whom spoke today, colleagues 
who I have great respect for from wide open spaces of the West, from 
Montana and Wyoming, talk about the need for us to consider their 
specific needs and afford them flexibility, allowing them to have a 
highway speed limit higher than might be appropriate in the middle of 
Philadelphia County in Philadelphia, PA, or in the middle of Newark, 
NJ.
  I understand that and appreciate that, but I have always found it 
difficult to understand how they cannot appreciate the problems of 
urban States where it makes much less sense for us to go out and build 
additional highways than it does for us to allow the States to have 
flexibility to use some of those moneys, designated portions of them, 
for the purpose of making sure we meet air quality standards, safety 
standards, and the transportation needs of the people of our State.
  Let States decide. Let States decide. This is the mandate set out in 
both the House and Senate budget resolutions which we are going to hear 
a lot about today. Let the devolution of power occur; send it back to 
the States.
  This whole thing is also a mandate that sets out for Amtrak 
authorizing legislation that we are going to take up very soon.
  The first stage of this new authorizing legislation for Amtrak was 
announced last December with major routes elimination taking place 
effective in April, frequency reductions in the selection of routes 
throughout the country that will be completed this coming October.
  The bottom line is more States will have less service in areas that 
they need and that they could very well be willing to use highway funds 
to keep. As a result, many communities across the country find 
themselves with little or no interstate rail service, and the Governors 
of those States know that intercity rail is an important option for 
small towns without air service as well as for congested commuter 
corridors. They know that intercity rail supports commerce and is an 
important component of the modern national transportation system.
  Last June, I entered into the Record a letter from Governor Dean of 
Vermont, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, 
Governor Carper of Delaware, and subsequently Governor Ridge of 
Pennsylvania, Democrats and Republicans alike, asking for this 
flexibility.
  Among the authors of that letter were Governors who had already 
committed their own State general revenues to support intercity rail 
routes and at the same time they had surpluses in their Federal 
transportation program that they are prohibited from using, that is, 
money that went back to the States they could not use because they did 
not want to build more highways. I said, ``Can't we use that for 
this?'' They said, ``No, you can't.'' So they are required to go into 
the general funds of their States. That seems to me to be 
counterproductive. Many States have confirmed the importance of Amtrak.
  Today, Mr. President, I have a letter from those same Governors, 
joined by Governor Allen of Virginia, another Republican, along with 
additional letters from Governor Whitman of New Jersey, reinforcing 
their support for the Roth-Biden amendment in the Senate version of the 
National Highway System bill. These letters were sent in October, 
unfortunately to no avail. They were sent to Congressman Shuster, chair 
of the House Transportation Committee and leader of the House 
conferees. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: As you continue to work with the 
     Senate towards completion of the National Highway System 
     bill, we want you to be aware our strong support for the 
     right of states to use their federal transportation funds for 
     rail passenger service. The so called ``Roth-Biden'' 
     provision which was included in S. 440 by a vote of 64-36 has 
     our full and enthusiastic support, and we urge you to support 
     its inclusion in the final NHS bill.
       As you are aware, under present law, we are not able to 
     make use of our federal highway or transit funds for rail 
     passenger service. Enactment of this provision will provide 
     states with the ability to decide what transportation system 
     best meets their needs and to allocate their federal funds 
     accordingly. In this time of severe budget constraints at all 
     levels of government, it is essential that we empower state 
     and local officials to make the best use of scarce federal 
     resources.
       We view this inclusion of the Both/Biden provision in the 
     final version of the NHS bill as an extremely positive step 
     in the direction of achieving a higher level of state choice 
     and a more balanced transportation system. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure this result.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Howard Dean.
     Gov. George Allen.
     Gov. Gaston Caperton.
     Gov. John Engler.
     Gov. Tom Carper.
                                                                    ____



                                          State of New Jersey,

                                    Trenton, NJ, October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: As you continue to work with the 
     Senate towards completion of the National Highway System 
     bill, I want you to be aware of my strong support for the 
     right of states to use their federal transportation funds for 
     rail passenger service. The so called ``Roth-Biden'' 
     provision, which was included in S. 440 by a vote of 64-36, 
     has my 

[[Page S17224]]
     full and enthusiastic support, and I urge you to support its inclusion 
     in the final NHS bill.
       As you are aware, under present law, we are not able to 
     make use of our federal highway or transit funds for rail 
     passenger service. Enactment of this provision will provide 
     states with the ability to decide what transportation system 
     best meets their needs, and to allocate their federal funds 
     accordingly. In this time of severe budget constraints at all 
     levels of government, it is essential that we empower state 
     and local officials to make the best use of scarce federal 
     resources.
       The inclusion of the Both/Biden provision in the final 
     version of the NHS bill is an extremely positive step in the 
     direction of achieving a higher level of state choice, and a 
     more balanced transportation system. I look forward to 
     working with you to ensure this result.
           Yours sincerely,
                                           Christine Todd Whitman,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, because the support is still out there and 
because the need for Amtrak services must still be met by the States 
and because the principle of increased State flexibility is still 
valid, I will continue to fight for this Senate language that has been 
dropped from the conference report. But because I do not want to waste 
more time on this proposal and tie up my friend, the chairman of the 
committee, who I again thank for his dogged support of this proposition 
at a time when so much of our legislative business is yet to be done, I 
will not introduce this motion to recommit. But I consider the loss of 
important Senate language a clear reason for me to vote against this 
conference report.
  I also want my colleagues to know that I will seek another means by 
which to accomplish the goals of the Roth-Biden amendment, and I will 
continue to fight to get it put into law.
  To put it to you very bluntly, Mr. President, the reason I am not 
going to pursue this right now is if this prevails and gets sent back 
to committee, these States that are looking for the flexibility will 
also in the meantime have additional moneys tied up. They will not be 
able to get moneys that are in this bill that they need now. So I am in 
kind of a catch-22 position. My purpose here is to help Amtrak and to 
give Governors of States flexibility to decide what their 
transportation network should look like. But if I succeed, it goes back 
to the House again and goes back into conference, and I am not at all 
sure, to be very blunt about it, whether or not my friend from Rhode 
Island, notwithstanding his Herculean efforts, would be able to prevail 
were we to send him back. So that is why I am withholding this motion. 
So I will yield.
  I saw my colleague from Delaware, who is the lead sponsor on this 
amendment. I do not know whether he wishes to speak on this right now. 
But for the time being--is there any time under the control of the 
Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 3 minutes 40 
seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe that I have some time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 18 minutes 40 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Eighteen?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes forty seconds left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I just want to stand up and announce my support of the comments and 
the program that the distinguished Senator from Delaware outlined in 
terms of where he would like to see things go for Amtrak. I, too, am an 
active proponent of Amtrak because its part in our intermodal 
transportation system is so significant.
  I note, Mr. President, that when I was chairman of the Transportation 
Subcommittee of Appropriations--and that was the situation until the 
beginning of this year--that whenever there was an opportunity to 
review another transportation bill, invariably colleagues would come 
and plead with me for continued service by Amtrak to their States, even 
those States that had a couple of trains a week going through there.
  They all loved the notion that Amtrak, the intercity rail system, the 
national passenger rail service, was going to continue providing 
service. Well, we have seen cutback after cutback, narrowing this thing 
down. And in these days of spare resources, I think it made sense to 
review very closely what was taking place there and to avoid as much as 
possible the continued costs for the operations of Amtrak.
  However, Amtrak stands alone in terms of the percentage of the fare 
box that is received among railroads across the world. Amtrak has the 
highest share of revenues per fare box of any railroad in any country 
on Earth.
  So, I fight very hard to protect the ability of Amtrak to function. 
And I know that is true of my colleagues from Rhode Island, including 
the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, as well as other colleagues who see the value of Amtrak as 
part of the transportation system and who look at the possibilities 
that might exist if Amtrak was not functioning.

  The distinguished Senator from Delaware talked about aviation. I 
point out that we would need 10,000 flights a year, additional flights 
a year, DC-9 size, just to service the volume of traffic that Amtrak 
now handles. If Amtrak can improve its service, get higher speed 
service, make the capital investments to bring that system up to the 
level that it ought to be, it would carry even more passengers. A 
computer permutation shows exactly that.
  Here we are, when we have a chance, when we give the Governors--we 
talk about States' rights, and we talk about giving the States the 
chance to make their own decisions. Here we have a chance to do it. 
When it was supported in the Senate by a vote of 64-36, we lose it in 
conference. Frankly, I think that is a terrible condition. I was 
disappointed that it was believed that we could maintain the integrity 
of the highway trust fund by receding from the Senate position on 
Amtrak flexibility.
  Simply, this provision would have allowed the States the discretion 
to use a small portion of their highway formula funds for Amtrak 
expenses. I sponsored this same amendment when ISTEA was being 
developed and when it passed the Senate. So, when it comes to Amtrak, 
when it comes to motorcycles--when it comes to Amtrak, we do not say 
that the States know best. We say Washington knows best. And that is an 
anomaly that, frankly, I do not understand.
  Mr. President, I feel that we have lost an excellent opportunity 
here. I hope that we will be able to recapture it along the way with 
other legislation, as indicated by the Senator from Delaware. As the 
ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I can 
tell my colleagues that the appropriations bill that the President 
signed the other night included a 25-percent cut in Amtrak's operating 
subsidy; $137 million in a single year will be cut.
  Without having to be a rocket scientist, it is obvious these cuts 
will cause another round of service cuts, another round of layoffs. 
Amtrak just completed the largest round of service cuts and layoffs in 
its history. Now we are going to look again at another round of service 
cuts, another round of layoffs.
  This NHS bill was held to be minimizing these cuts, to allow the 
Nation's Governors to use their discretion, to enter into cost-sharing 
agreements with Amtrak and keep certain of these trains running. I am 
sure that those Members that insist that we deny the Governors this 
form of flexibility will be the same persons who complain when they 
endure additional losses in Amtrak service and additional losses in 
Amtrak employment.

  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I just want to reiterate--and 
I will not be long in deference to my colleagues who are waiting for 
the floor--that I think the NHS bill is a very positive piece of 
legislation in general, that it provides additional investments in 
infrastructure, which I repeat that I strongly support, but as we look 
at the abandonment of safety, we have to also consider what happens in 
terms of not only the loss of limb and life, but the additional 
financial costs that are associated with it. We also have to look at 
the fact that we will help create more air pollution as we load up 
further highway travel. We will be looking 

[[Page S17225]]
at depending more on imported oil from the Middle East. That is a 
tragic situation for us.
  More danger to law enforcement people. Put a patrol car out there 
having to enforce the law with someone going 90 miles an hour. I assure 
you that no policeman's family is going to like that assignment. But 
here we are. We are abandoning all other good judgment to save minutes 
a day. It is a regrettable thing, again, because this is tagged onto a 
good piece of legislation. But those who believe that safety is not a 
significant factor have abandoned that at this juncture. And I 
sincerely regret it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was deeply disappointed that the 
conferees dropped the provision that would have let States invest 
limited amounts of highway funds for intercity passenger rail service. 
This reasonable amendment would have given States like Vermont some 
flexibility to start or continue Amtrak service.
  Last December, Amtrak made the painful decision to terminate the 
Montrealer, Vermont's only passenger rail service. Over the ensuing 
months, a unique partnership developed between the State of Vermont and 
Amtrak that resulted in an improved, cost-effective train, the 
Vermonter. The Vermonter has become a success story for Vermont and for 
Amtrak. Ridership has dramatically increased since its inception, a new 
baggage car has made the train more attractive to skiers and 
bicyclists, and the train operates at less than half the cost of the 
Montrealer.
  The Vermonter's existence is largely due to the State of Vermont, 
which agreed last spring to pay up to $750,000 to subsidize the route 
for 1 year. This subsidy represents a heavy commitment for my small 
State. As the Congress continues to cut Amtrak's budget, reallocated 
Amtrak costs are going to be passed on to Vermont in the form of a 
higher subsidy, which could well make the Vermonter unaffordable for 
Vermont.
  This is why this amendment was so important for Vermont and other 
States. We subsidize highway construction with billions of taxpayer 
dollars every year. This modest provision would have allowed States 
some flexibility to use a small portion of those funds for Amtrak 
service. I am disappointed that the Senate conferees allowed this 
provision to be dropped in conference.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask how much time I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I see the distinguished Democratic 
Senator from Delaware here. I want to say everything he said was 
exactly right. It was an overwhelming vote on the floor to permit the 
States to give money to Amtrak, that this was the ultimate of 
flexibility, which is the big war cry around this place. But we have 
discovered when it comes to flexibility, there is a great deal of 
flexibility in interpreting what is flexible. There was no movement in 
the House on this. It was very, very--they were adamant.
  All I can say is I think what this country needs is a transportation 
trust fund, not a highway trust fund. I know that the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee is going to speak in a few minutes, 
and I believe he has thoughts in the same manner.
  But clearly we have to do something about Amtrak. We cannot just make 
the cuts that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey was talking 
about, $137 million. As the Senator from Delaware said, every railroad 
transportation system in the world is subsidized, and for us to think 
that we can get away without subsidizing Amtrak is nonsense. However, 
we would not have a bill here today if we hung to our position that was 
voted here on the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner, Congressman Shuster, 
and the other conferees for agreeing to include a provision in the 
National Highway System bill ensuring that public highways connecting 
the NHS to ports, airports, and other intermodal transportation 
facilities will be eligible for NHS funds without further delay.
  One of the main reasons for creating the NHS was to establish 
intermodal facility connections. But few of the connectors are included 
on the current NHS map and the Department of Transportation is not 
expected to have a list of additional connectors ready until after 
enactment of this legislation. To ensure that NHS funding for the 
connectors on DOT's list is not further delayed, the bill makes them 
eligible for such assistance on an interim basis. While I would have 
preferred the Senate passed bill language, this provision represents a 
reasonable compromise and should achieve the same results.
  There is one matter dealing with the interim eligibility provision on 
which I would appreciate the chairman's clarification, however. The 
provision refers to a project to construct a connector to an intermodal 
transportation facility. It is my understanding that the word 
``construct'' is to be read very broadly to include not only 
construction and reconstruction projects, but also ones involving 
resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and operational improvements, 
such as the installation of traffic surveillance and control equipment 
and computerized signal systems.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The understanding of the Senator from Missouri is 
correct. The word ``construct'' is to be read very broadly to include 
the types of projects the Senator have just described.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman for this clarification.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the Democratic 
leader. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the 
conference report to accompany S. 440 occur at 1:15 p.m. today, with 
paragraph 4 of rule XII waived; and further, that immediately following 
that vote, notwithstanding receipt of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2491, that the time consumed then be counted against the 
statutory time limit provided for in the conference report and each 
statement only occur as time is yielded by the managers or their 
designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the question again--I am sorry--are the yeas 
and nays ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island does not have 7 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I was wondering if the Senator from New Jersey would give 
me a bit of his time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes fifty-two seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wanted to offer 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas. I will be happy to yield 7 minutes from my time 
to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I have 5 minutes. Why do we not give him----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain for the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Three from you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the senior Senator from Delaware will allow 
me 2 minutes to ask the manager a question.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And the Senator has the time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. This morning, I heard the Senator from Rhode Island 
talking about the provision in the bill that changes the law that 
prohibits States from putting new billboards on scenic highways. I was 
adamantly opposed to the section of the bill that would turn this 
authority back to the States. We have a magnificent highway 

[[Page S17226]]
in my State. When complete, it is going to be one of the most 
beautiful--if not the most beautiful--scenic highways in America.
  I am not sure what the distinguished floor manager said this morning 
on that provision about the Secretary's right to override the States on 
this. Could the Senator clarify that for me?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Here is the situation. As the Senator knows, I very 
strongly supported the provision that we have in the law that says on 
scenic byways--and by the way, a scenic byway is designated by the 
State. It is not Big Brother from the Federal Government that 
designates them. The States designate the scenic byways, and then the 
Federal Government gives some moneys to help them.
  By the way, the provision we have is no new billboards on scenic 
byways, no new billboards. The question came up on segmentation. You 
could have a 40-mile scenic byway, then a commercial section of 2 miles 
maybe, and then 30 more miles of scenic byway. The question was, could 
you segment these things?
  The answer was, we included a provision that you could segment it 
without getting ridiculous; in other words, having a 2-mile stretch and 
then 4 miles of billboards and then another 2-mile stretch. So we 
believe that what we came up with protects the existing situation.
  The words that the Senator was referring to was permitting the 
Secretary of Transportation to have the authority to prevent actions by 
the State that overrode the Federal requirements that prevented 
billboards. In other words, this was something to ensure that these 
States cannot set claim it is a scenic byway and instead it is a 
billboard alley.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator from Rhode Island feel that this 
sufficiently protects existing law?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do. We spent a lot of time with the highway 
administrator and with his folks. We believe that what we have written 
into the law now is exactly the way the situation is interpreted 
currently.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much, and I thank the Senator 
from Delaware for allowing me to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as the author of the Amtrak amendment, I 
cannot overemphasize my extreme disappointment that the National 
Highway System conference report does not include this amendment. This 
amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Senate by a vote of 64 to 36. In 
April, when I introduced the Intercity Rail Investment Act with 13 
cosponsors, I thought I had an approach that would be acceptable to all 
parties. I find it difficult to understand the objection to this 
proposal. As others have pointed out, in other countries, a viable rail 
system has always depended upon Government aid.

  Frankly, when I offered the Roth-Biden amendment to the National 
Highway System bill, it was overwhelmingly approved, as I thought it 
would be. While my amendment received strong support in this body, it, 
unfortunately, ran into difficulty on the House side in the conference.
  Mr. President, my amendment would have given States the flexibility 
to use a portion of their Federal transportation dollars for passenger 
rail service, and it would have provided States with the ability to 
decide what transportation system would best meet their needs and allow 
them to allocate their Federal funds accordingly.
  In a time of budget constraints, my amendment would have empowered 
State and local officials to make the best use of their Federal 
resources and, as has been pointed out, one of the things that we have 
been seeking to do in bringing about change in Government is to provide 
flexibility to State and local officials to make the best use of the 
Federal resources that they have available.
  Sixty-four Senators agreed with me and voted in favor of my 
amendment. Sixty-four Senators went on record for State choice, for a 
more balanced transportation system. These Members know that Amtrak is 
a vital and absolutely essential part of America's transportation 
network. While the Senate position did not prevail in conference, I 
know that Senator Chafee and other Members worked hard to convince the 
House how important this legislation is to our State Governors and to 
the intermodal transportation system. I want to express my appreciation 
to Senator Chafee, and others, for what they did.
  I appreciate their strong support for my amendment and we shall be 
back. We shall be back until we provide this kind of flexibility to our 
State officials.
  Mr. President, the need for passenger rail service is clear. All one 
has to do is look at our congested areas, particularly in the urban 
corridors along the east and west coast. Adding more highways simply is 
not an economic or viable option. In this part of the country, the 
Northeast corridor alone, annual Amtrak ridership between New York and 
Washington, DC, is the equivalent of 7,500 fully booked 757's, or 
10,000 fully booked DC-9's.
  If Amtrak were to shut down, adding more highways simply would not be 
a viable option. Just in the last year, Delaware alone had 607,000 
riders.
  We simply cannot have another system with that kind of capacity 
without adversely affecting our air quality and our land resources.
  Mr. President, I know that my amendment would not have solved 
Amtrak's financial problems. Amtrak will need to continue to do its own 
internal restructuring. It will also need a dedicated trust fund to 
support capital needs the way we provide capital for highways and 
airports.
  As chairman of the Finance Committee, I recently reported out a bill 
that would dedicate a half cent from the mass transit fund to Amtrak. 
This measure would dedicate over $2 billion to Amtrak. As with the 
Roth-Biden Amtrak amendment, I am also eager to see this legislation 
enacted this year.
  While I had hoped that my amendment would have been included in the 
conference report, I understand, having experienced some of them 
myself, the constraints that Members must operate under in conference.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that if Congress hopes to 
privatize Amtrak in the next 5 years, and if we support continued 
intercity passenger rail service--service that is vital to both rural 
and urban areas--we will vote in favor of a dedicated trust fund for 
Amtrak and for flexibility for State transportation spending on 
passenger rail service.
  Mr. President, I am eager to work with my colleagues in the House and 
Senate to achieve this goal. Again, I thank Senator Chafee for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have the remainder of Senator 
Lautenberg's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say to the distinguished Senator 
from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee, that I agree with 
everything he said. I think that it was terribly unfortunate that we 
could not get the House to budge. This was an absolute immovable 
position that they had. I hope that we can set up this Amtrak trust 
fund.
  Frankly, as I said before, I would like to see a national 
transportation fund instead of a highway trust fund. Amtrak deserves 
every bit of support we can give, for all the reasons that the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware so ably set forth.
  Mr. President, we are going to vote at 1:15.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum at this time.
  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 (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the hour of 1:15 having arrived, I 
believe, according to the prior agreement, we commence the vote on the 
National Highway System conference report. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
conference report to S. 440. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  
[[Page S17227]]

  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], and the Senator from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Smith] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 582 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--16

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bradley
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Pell
     Roth
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gramm
     McCain
     Smith
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.

                          ____________________