[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3216-S3224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Byrd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Roth, Mr. Biden, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, and 
        Ms. Collins):
  S. 586. A bill to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                 the istea reauthorization act of 1997

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I rise with Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman and a 
distinguished group of my colleagues today to introduce the ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act of 1997. This bill is designed to reauthorize, with 
some modifications and improvements, the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. ISTEA is an innovative law that 
addresses the fundamental imbalance in national transportation 
investment, and in so doing, serves to promote intermodalism, improve 
mobility and access to jobs, protect the environment, empower local 
communities, and enhance transportation safety.
  ISTEA spurred the Federal Government and the States to invest their 
transportation dollars in whatever modes were most efficient for moving 
people and goods and to solicit the input of local communities in 
planning those investments. The result was a dramatic increase in 
investment in maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roads and 
bridges, in mass transit, and in creative approaches to our 
transportation needs, from bicycle and pedestrian paths to ferry boats.
  When I introduced the original ISTEA legislation in 1991, I had only 
four Senate cosponsors--Quentin Burdick of North Dakota, Steve Symms of 
Idaho, John Chafee of Rhode Island, and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. 
The bill I introduce today has broad bipartisan and grassroots support, 
with 31 Senate cosponsors from across the country joining me. We have 
learned a lot over the last 6 years.
  In 1991, my House counterpart Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, then 
chairman of the Public Works Committee, and I had hoped to develop a 
Federal highway bill that would mark the end of the era of interstate 
highway construction. That era had brought the nationwide, multilane, 
limited access highway system, as first envisioned at the General 
Motors Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair, and then advanced in 
1944 by President Roosevelt. The New York State Thruway was the 
system's first segment. In fact, the civil engineer who built it, 
Bertram Tallamy, left Albany in 1956 to start up the national program 
in Washington with funding from a dedicated tax proposed by President 
Eisenhower and approved by Congress that year.
  But by 1991 the interstate system was essentially done and Chairman 
Roe and I confronted the question, ``What now?''
  We developed three principles for the first highway bill to mark the 
post-interstate era. First, the primary objective was to improve 
efficiency of the transportation system we already had. Second, the 
time had come to turn the initiative in transportation matters back to 
the States and cities. Third, transit was to be an option for cities.
  I am proud to say we achieved our three principles and more.
  The Interstate Highway System left a big mark on American cities, 
where the majority of the funds were spent. I wrote in The Reporter in 
1960:

       It is not true, as is sometimes alleged, that the sponsors 
     of the interstate program ignored the consequences it would 
     have in the cities. Nor did they simply acquiesce in them. 
     They exulted in them . . . This rhapsody startled many of 
     those who have been concerned with the future of the American 
     city. To undertake a vast program of urban highway 
     construction with no thought for other forms of 
     transportation seemed lunatic.

  The results often were. American cities were cruelly split, their 
character and geography changed forever, with interstate highways 
running through once-thriving working class neighborhoods from Newark 
to Detroit to Miami. Homes and jobs were dispersed to the outlying 
suburbs and beyond. The wreckage was something to see. Some cities have 
used ISTEA funds to try to repair the damage where they could, using 
funds for transit--even bike and pedestrian paths--instead of more road 
building. Or with plans such as Boston's Central Artery, a project

[[Page S3217]]

that will reunite some of that city's most historic and colorful 
neighborhoods, separated for almost 40 years by an elevated highway.
  Today, I ask that we continue to build upon our success with ISTEA, 
changing it only as needed. The bill we introduce today retains the 
basic structure of ISTEA, which distributes funds primarily on needs 
balanced with such factors as historical shares, but updates outmoded 
formulas and streamlines the equity adjustment programs. The ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act of 1997 also increases flexibility for States by 
allowing them to use some of their transportation funding to support 
Amtrak. This is the first step this year in meeting our commitment to 
address Amtrak's long-term funding needs.

  The ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 reauthorizes all the program 
categories of the original legislation--the National Highway System, 
the Interstate Maintenance Program, the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation 
and Replacement Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement Program, the Surface Transportation Program, the Interstate 
Highway Reimbursement Program, and the Transportation Enhancements 
Program--at a total funding level of $26 billion, which can be fully 
supported by the Highway Trust Fund.
  While the ISTEA Reauthorization Act increases funding for all the 
program categories, I want to mention three programs in more detail. 
The bill strengthens the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement Program, funding it at $2 billion annually, with a portion 
of the authorized amount to be distributed on the basis of population 
residing in fine particulate non-attainment areas. The CMAQ program, 
which has allowed States and municipalities to find creative solutions 
to improving air quality and reducing traffic congestion, has been an 
ISTEA success story, resulting in impressive improvement in U.S. air 
quality over the last few years.
  The bill also increases funding for the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation 
and Replacement Program to $3.75 billion per year. The success of the 
Bridge Program is dramatic--in four years, there has been a 15 percent 
drop in deficient bridges--from 111,200 in 1990 to 94,800 in 1994. I 
believe broad consensus exists to strengthen this important program 
that has already done so much to preserve our existing bridge 
infrastructure.
  Finally, the ISTEA Reauthorization Act fully funds the Interstate 
Highway Reimbursement Program at $2 billion per year. The Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1956 provided for the Federal Government to fund the 
construction of the Interstate Highway System with a Federal-State 
share of 90-10. At that time a number of States had, at their own 
expense, already constructed a total of 10,859 miles of highways that 
later became part of the Interstate System.
  As a result, Congress tasked the Bureau of Public Roads with 
determining the cost of reimbursing States for those segments, and the 
Bureau arrived at a figure of $5 billion in 1957 dollars. ISTEA used 
that figure, adjusted to $30 billion in 1991 dollars, and established a 
15-year repayment schedule. The ISTEA Reauthorization Act retains this 
program, which is a matter of basic equity and provides urgently needed 
funds for those highways that are the oldest and among the most heavily 
used portions of the Interstate System.
  These programs are essentially, but I do hope that as Congress 
considers reauthorization of ISTEA, we can ask the question once again, 
``What now?''
  Congress must focus on increasing the U.S. investment in 
transportation infrastructure. The United States has watched our 
European and Asian competitors finance and build innovative 
transportation infrastructure that is the envy of the world. As the 
budget process gets underway this year, we will need innovative 
financing ideas to leverage scarce Federal dollars and address our 
chronic multi-billion dollar underinvestment in U.S. roads, bridges, 
rails, ports, and transit systems.
  We must also search for new technologies and innovations--like 
Magnetic-Levitation trains [maglev] and Intelligent Transportation 
Systems [ITS]--to solve our congestion and air quality problems without 
pouring ever more concrete. The railroad represents an early 19th 
century technology, the automobile an early 20th century technology; we 
need new modes of transportation for the next century.
  Today, maglev trains run in Bremen, but not in New York, where the 
maglev concept was first conceived in 1960 by a young Brookhaven 
scientist, James Powell, as he sat mired in traffic on the Bronx-
Whitestone Bridge. In truth, today most of the meager Federal 
transportation research and development resources are going for 
improvements in existing highways, and not into other modes such as 
rail and transit, where I suspect we can achieve much greater economic 
and environmental returns.
  As we determine the course for this bill, I also wish to address the 
so-called donor State issue. To distribute Federal transportation funds 
primarily upon the ability of each State to collect fuel taxes, as 
advocated by representatives of the donor States, would run counter to 
whole concept of federalism, which is based on collecting national 
resources to address national needs. When California has an earthquake, 
or Florida has a hurricane, or the Mississippi River floods its banks, 
the entire Nation addresses these needs, without considering whether 
the needed funds were raised in the affected States. Every other 
Federal program--from crop supports to water reclamation projects to 
airport improvement grants--distributes funds on the basis of need.

  For example, in response to the Savings & Loan crisis, the Resolution 
Trust Corp. was formed to help bail out depositors, but each State did 
not contribute according to the amount of dollars lost in that State. 
If such an approach had been taken, Texas alone would have faced costs 
of over $26 billion, while the cost to New York would have been only $3 
billion. Under our Federal system, which allocates national resources 
to meet national needs, the taxpayers of New York shouldered a 
significant portion of Texas's burden. The cosponsors of the ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act, most of them from donor States in the larger 
scheme of the balance of Federal payments, reject the idea that 
gasoline taxes should be distributed according to where they are 
collected.
  Furthermore, some of the highway bill proposals put forth this year, 
which distribute up to 60 percent of transportation funding on the 
basis of where the gas taxes were collected, thwart our national 
environmental efforts. These bills reward States with high gas 
consumption, and punish States that conserve fuel and invest in mass 
transit. Under these proposals, a State that invests in a new bus or 
rail line, or in other improvements that reduce traffic congestion and 
improve air quality, would receive less transportation money as gas 
consumption falls.
  As a Nation we have made clean air and reduced dependence on foreign 
oil two major priorities--these bills threaten to undo the progress we 
have made. In 1944, the United States exported oil. In 1956, we 
imported only 11.5 percent of consumption. Today, we import nearly 50 
percent of the oil we consume. It could be said that the biggest single 
effect of the Interstate Highway System has been in the field of 
American foreign policy. We are a nation that absolutely must have 
foreign oil, and must shape our defense and foreign policies 
accordingly. We must strive to keep that dependency to a minimum. The 
sponsors of the ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 are committed to that 
goal.
  We are also committed to working with other Members, including our 
distinguished colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Subcommittee, Senators Warner and Baucus, who have both put forth their 
own proposals for reauthorizing ISTEA. Each coalition's bill reflects, 
to a greater or lesser extent, the interests of its own member States 
and regions, and I am confident that all will ultimately contribute to 
a transportation bill that best serves the Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ISTEA Reauthorization 
Act of 1997 legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 586

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``ISTEA 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997''.

[[Page S3218]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4. National Highway System.
Sec. 5. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.
Sec. 6. Surface transportation program.
Sec. 7. Bridge program.
Sec. 8. Minimum allocation.
Sec. 9. Reimbursement program.
Sec. 10. Apportionment adjustments.
Sec. 11. Research programs.
Sec. 12. Scenic byways program.
Sec. 13. Ferry boats and terminals.
Sec. 14. National recreational trails program.
Sec. 15. Transportation and land use initiative.
Sec. 16. Appalachian development highway system.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (Public Law 102-240) (referred to in this section as 
     ``ISTEA'') was the result of a bipartisan and multiregional 
     consensus to change transportation policy by giving States 
     and localities more flexibility in spending Federal funds 
     while still pursuing important national goals;
       (2) the Federal Government has an important role to play in 
     helping to fund transportation improvements and ensuring that 
     a national focus remains on national goals such as mobility, 
     connectivity and integrity of the transportation system, 
     safety, research, air quality, global and national economic 
     competitiveness, and improved quality of life;
       (3) this role as funding partner and policy-maker--
       (A) should nurture State and local flexibility in using 
     funds to solve problems creatively; and
       (B) should relieve the States of burdensome regulation and 
     review procedures that slow down project implementation 
     without adding value;
       (4)(A) the economic health of the United States and of the 
     metropolitan and rural areas in the United States depends 
     on--
       (i) a strong transit program funded above fiscal year 1997 
     levels; and
       (ii) dedicated support for intercity passenger rail; and
       (B) this Act should be accompanied by companion legislation 
     to provide for the needs described in subparagraph (A);
       (5) the funding programs authorized by ISTEA were visionary 
     and will continue to influence transportation into the 
     future;
       (6) the partnerships between the Federal Government and 
     State and local governments, and between the public and 
     private sectors, that were reaffirmed and strengthened by 
     ISTEA are helping to improve transportation investment and 
     transportation policy choices; and
       (7) it is in the interest of the United States as a whole 
     to--
       (A) reauthorize ISTEA in 1997 with refinements but without 
     significant changes, and without eliminating current funding 
     categories;
       (B) authorize the maximum feasible level of funding for 
     ISTEA programs;
       (C) allocate these funds among the States based primarily 
     on need, with adjustments to be considered to reflect--
       (i) system usage;
       (ii) system extent; and
       (iii) historic distribution patterns;
       (D) preserve and strengthen the partnerships among the 
     Federal Government, State governments, local governments, and 
     the private sector;
       (E) minimize prescriptive Federal regulation that is 
     unnecessary and eliminate regulatory duplication between the 
     Federal Government and State governments;
       (F) increase flexibility to address intermodal projects; 
     and
       (G) provide a separate adequately funded transit program.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--For the purpose of carrying out title 23, 
     United States Code, the following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account):
       (1) National highway system.--For the National Highway 
     System under section 103 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $5,600,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (2) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate 
     maintenance program under section 119 of that title 
     $5,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (3) Surface transportation program.--For the surface 
     transportation program under section 133 of that title 
     $5,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (4) Bridge program.--For the highway bridge replacement and 
     rehabilitation program under section 144 of that title 
     $3,750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (5) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program under section 149 of that title 
     $2,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (6) Minimum allocation.--For the minimum allocation program 
     under section 157 of that title $830,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Such sums shall not be 
     subject to subsection (a) or (f) of section 104 of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (7) Apportionment adjustments.--For apportionment 
     adjustments under section 10 $470,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003. Such sums shall not be subject to 
     subsection (a) or (f) of section 104 of title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (8) Interstate reimbursement program.--For reimbursement 
     for segments of the Interstate System constructed without 
     Federal assistance under section 160 of that title 
     $2,050,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (9) Federal lands highways program.--
       (A) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads 
     under section 204 of that title $210,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (B) Public lands highways.--For public lands highways under 
     section 204 of that title $215,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003.
       (C) Parkways and park roads.--For parkways and park roads 
     under section 204 of that title $100,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (10) FHWA highway safety programs.--For carrying out 
     section 402 of that title by the Federal Highway 
     Administration $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003.
       (11) FHWA highway safety research and development.--For 
     carrying out section 403 of that title by the Federal Highway 
     Administration $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003.
       (b) Limitation on Obligations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any limitation on obligations established 
     for any of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for funds 
     apportioned or allocated from the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) shall apply equally to all 
     such apportionments and allocations, except that no such 
     limitation shall apply to any allocation made under section 
     125 of title 23, United States Code, for emergency relief.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 104(b) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) National highway system.--For the National Highway 
     System, 1 percent to the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
     Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
     and the remaining 99 percent apportioned as follows:
       ``(A) \1/3\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the total vehicle miles traveled on public highways 
     in each State; bears to
       ``(ii) the total vehicle miles traveled on public highways 
     in all States;
       ``(B) \1/3\ of the remaining apportionments in the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the total lane miles of public highways in each 
     State; bears to
       ``(ii) the total lane miles of public highways in all 
     States; and
       ``(C) \1/3\ of the remaining apportionments in equal 
     amounts to each State.''.
       (b) Set Aside for 4R Projects.--Section 118(c)(2)(A) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended in the first 
     sentence--
       (1) by striking ``1996, and'' and inserting ``1996,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``1997'' the following: ``, and 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003''.

     SEC. 5. CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Adjustment for New Nonattainment Areas.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2000, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall--
       (A) prepare a report containing recommended adjustments to 
     the formula used to apportion funds for the congestion 
     mitigation and air quality improvement program under section 
     149 of title 23, United States Code, and the amount 
     apportioned for the program, to reflect changes, since the 
     enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240), in--
       (i) national ambient air quality standards under the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and
       (ii) the emission control requirements that result from the 
     standards; and
       (B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Adoption of new formula and apportionments.--
       (A) Effect of failure to adopt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, if, by September 30, 2000, the 
     recommendations contained in the report described in 
     paragraph (1) have not been enacted into law, as proposed in 
     the report or as amended by Congress, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall withhold 10 percent of the 
     apportionments otherwise required to be made under title 23, 
     United States Code, on October 1, 2000.
       (B) Effect of later adoption.--The Secretary shall 
     apportion the amount withheld under subparagraph (A) upon the 
     enactment of a law described in subparagraph (A).
       (b) Particulate Matter.--Section 104(b)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (E) as 
     clauses (i) through (v), respectively, and indenting 
     appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``For the congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement program,

[[Page S3219]]

     in the ratio which'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--For the congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement program in accordance with subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C).
       ``(B) Weighted nonattainment area population.--The 
     Secretary shall apportion 90 percent of the remainder of the 
     sums authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the 
     program in the ratio that'';
       (3) in subparagraph (B) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``such subpart.'' in clause (v) and all 
     that follows through ``the area was'' and inserting the 
     following: ``such subpart.
     If the area was''; and
       (B) in the sentence beginning with ``If the area'', by 
     striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subparagraph'';
       (4) by striking the sentence beginning with 
     ``Notwithstanding any provision'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Particulate matter.--The Secretary shall apportion 10 
     percent of the remainder of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for expenditure on the program in the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the population of all areas that are nonattainment 
     under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for 
     particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 
     or equal to 10 micrometers (known as `PM-10') in each State; 
     bears to
       ``(ii) the population of all such areas in all States.'';
       (5) in the next-to-last sentence, by striking 
     ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following:
       ``(D) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (6) in the last sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(E) Determination of population.--In determining 
     population for the purpose of this paragraph, the 
     Secretary''.
       (c) Increased Flexibility.--The first sentence of section 
     149(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) if the project or program will have air quality 
     benefits and consists of--
       ``(A) construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of, 
     or operational improvements for, intercity rail passenger 
     facilities (including facilities owned by the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation);
       ``(B) operation of intercity rail passenger trains; or
       ``(C) acquisition or remanufacture of rolling stock for 
     intercity rail passenger service;
     except that not more than 50 percent of the funds apportioned 
     to a State for a fiscal year under section 104(b)(2) may be 
     obligated for operations.''.

     SEC. 6. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Apportionment Formula.--Section 104(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Surface transportation program.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the surface transportation program, 
     in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the total lane miles of public highways in each State 
     multiplied by the relative intensity of use of public 
     highways in the State; bears to
       ``(ii) the sum of--

       ``(I) the total lane miles of public highways in each 
     State; multiplied by
       ``(II) the relative intensity of use of public highways in 
     the State.

       ``(B) Determination of relative intensity of use.--For the 
     purpose of subparagraph (A), the relative intensity of use of 
     public highways in a State shall be determined by dividing--
       ``(i) the vehicle miles traveled on public highways in the 
     State per lane mile of public highways in the State during 
     the latest 1-year-period for which data are available; by
       ``(ii) the vehicle miles traveled on public highways in all 
     States per lane mile of public highways in all States during 
     that period.
       ``(C) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this paragraph, for each fiscal year, each State 
     shall receive an apportionment under this paragraph of not 
     less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of all funds apportioned under 
     this paragraph for the fiscal year.''.
       (b) Increased Flexibility.--Section 133(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of, 
     and operational improvements for, intercity rail passenger 
     facilities (including facilities owned by the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation), operation of intercity rail 
     passenger trains, and acquisition or remanufacture of rolling 
     stock for intercity rail passenger service, except that not 
     more than 50 percent of the funds apportioned to a State for 
     a fiscal year under section 104(b)(3) may be obligated for 
     operations.''.
       (c) Allocation of Obligation Authority.--Section 133(f) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking ``6-
     fiscal year period 1992 through 1997'' and inserting ``6-
     fiscal-year period 1998 through 2003''.

     SEC. 7. BRIDGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Minimum Apportionment.--Section 144(e) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended in the fifth sentence by 
     striking ``0.25'' and inserting ``0.5''.
       (b) Authorizations for Discretionary Program.--Section 
     144(g) of title 23, United States Code, is by striking 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Discretionary bridge program.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section, all but $100,000,000 in the case of each 
     such fiscal year shall be apportioned as provided in 
     subsection (e).
       ``(B) Reserved amount.--For each of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003, of the $100,000,000 referred to in subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) $90,000,000 shall be allocated at the discretion of 
     the Secretary on the same date and in the same manner as 
     funds apportioned under subsection (e); and
       ``(ii) $10,000,000 shall be allocated by the Secretary in 
     accordance with section 1039 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 144 note; 
     105 Stat. 1990).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1039(e) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 144 note; 105 Stat. 1991) is amended by striking 
     ``1992, 1993,'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``1998 through 2003, $1,500,000 shall be available 
     to the Secretary to carry out subsections (a) and (b), and 
     $8,500,000 shall be available to the Secretary to carry out 
     subsection (c). Such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.''.

     SEC. 8. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

       Section 157 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking the paragraph designation 
     and all that follows before ``on October 1'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(4) Fiscal years 1992-1997.--In each of fiscal years 1992 
     through 1997,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Fiscal year 1998 and thereafter.--
       ``(A) Determination of amounts.--In fiscal year 1998 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter on October 1, or as soon as 
     practicable thereafter, the Secretary shall determine what 
     amount of funds would be required to ensure that a State's 
     percentage of the total apportionments in each such fiscal 
     year and allocations for the prior fiscal year for--
       ``(i) the National Highway System under section 103;
       ``(ii) the Interstate maintenance program under section 
     119;
       ``(iii) the surface transportation program under section 
     133;
       ``(iv) the bridge program under section 144;
       ``(v) the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program under section 149;
       ``(vi) grants for safety belts and motorcycle helmets under 
     section 153;
       ``(vii) the Interstate reimbursement program under section 
     160; and
       ``(viii) the scenic byways program under section 1047 of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1996);

     is not less than 90 percent of the percentage that the 
     population of the State is of the population of the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Apportionment.--After determining the amounts of 
     funds under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall apportion 
     the funds authorized to carry out this section to each State 
     in the ratio that the amount determined for the State under 
     subparagraph (A) bears to the total amount determined for all 
     States under subparagraph (A).'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking the last 2 sentences and 
     inserting the following: ``Funds apportioned under this 
     section shall be subject to any limitation on obligations 
     established for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Definition of State.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, in this section, the term `State' 
     means each of the 50 States.''.

     SEC. 9. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 160 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     allocate to the States in each of fiscal years 1996 and 
     1997'' and inserting ``For any fiscal year for which funds 
     are authorized to carry out this section, the Secretary shall 
     allocate to the States''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     1996 and 1997'' and inserting ``each fiscal year described in 
     subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 10. APPORTIONMENT ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
     ``State'' means each of the 50 States.
       (b) Density Adjustment.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), in the case of 
     any State eligible for a density adjustment under paragraph 
     (3), the amount of funds apportioned to the State for the 
     surface transportation program under section 133 of title 23, 
     United States Code, for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003--
       (A) shall be increased as necessary to ensure that the 
     percentage obtained by dividing--
       (i) the total apportionments to the State for the fiscal 
     year for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs; by
       (ii) the total of all apportionments to all States for the 
     fiscal year for Federal-aid highways and highway safety 
     construction programs;
     is not less than the minimum percentage for the State 
     determined under paragraph (2); and

[[Page S3220]]

       (B) shall be increased as necessary to ensure that the 
     State receives an increased apportionment under subparagraph 
     (A) of not less than $5,000,000.
       (2) Minimum percentage.--The minimum percentage referred to 
     in paragraph (1)(A) for a State shall be equal to the State's 
     percentage of the total apportionments and allocations during 
     fiscal years 1992 through 1997 under title 23, United States 
     Code, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (Public Law 102-240), and the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-59), excluding 
     apportionments and allocations made for--
       (A) Interstate construction under section 104(b)(5)(A);
       (B) emergency relief under section 125;
       (C) the Federal lands highways program under section 204;
       (D) donor State bonus amounts under section 1013(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 157 note; 105 Stat. 1940);
       (E) Kansas projects under section 1014(c) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 
     102-240; 105 Stat. 1942);
       (F) hold harmless adjustments under section 1015(a) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1943);
       (G) 90 percent of payment adjustments under section 1015(b) 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1944); and
       (H) demonstration projects under the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240).
       (3) Eligible states.--A State shall be eligible for a 
     density adjustment under this subsection if the State--
       (A) has a population density of less than 20 persons per 
     square mile or more than 450 persons per square mile; or
       (B) is an island State completely separated from the 
     continental United States by water.
       (c) Minimum Apportionment Adjustment.--Subject to 
     subsection (d), the amount of funds apportioned to a State 
     for the surface transportation program under section 133 for 
     each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 shall be increased as 
     necessary to ensure that--
       (1) the sum of--
       (A) the total apportionments to the State for the fiscal 
     year; and
       (B) the total allocations, authorized by this Act, to the 
     State for the previous fiscal year;

     for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs (excluding apportionments and allocations for 
     emergency relief under section 125 and for Federal lands 
     highways under section 204); is not less than
       (2)(A) \1/2\ of 1 percent of the sum of--
       (i) the total of all apportionments described in paragraph 
     (1) to all States for the fiscal year; and
       (ii) the total of all allocations described in paragraph 
     (1) to all States for the previous fiscal year; or
       (B) 90 percent of the total of all apportionments described 
     in paragraph (1) to the State for fiscal year 1997.
       (d) Limitation on Apportionment Adjustments.--If the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for apportionment 
     adjustments under this section for a fiscal year are 
     insufficient to fund the increased apportionments required by 
     subsections (b) and (c) for the fiscal year, the increased 
     apportionment for each State shall be reduced 
     proportionately.

     SEC. 11. RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

       (a) Strategic Highway Research Program.--Section 
     307(b)(2)(B) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997'' and inserting ``1994 
     through 2003''.
       (b) Applied Research Program.--Section 307(e)(13) of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``1993 through 2003''.
       (c) Intelligent Transportation Systems.--Section 6058 of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (23 U.S.C. 307 note; 105 Stat. 2191) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2003''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2003''.

     SEC. 12. SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM.

       Section 1047(d) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 105 Stat. 1996) 
     is amended by striking ``1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``1995 through 2003''.

     SEC. 13. FERRY BOATS AND TERMINALS.

       Section 1064(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note; 105 Stat. 2005) 
     is amended by striking ``fiscal year 1997'' and inserting 
     ``each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003''.

     SEC. 14. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM.

       Section 1302(d)(3) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261(d)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall not exceed'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``shall not exceed $30,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1992 through 2003.''.

     SEC. 15. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 307 the following:

     ``Sec. 307A. Transportation and land use initiative

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     comprehensive initiative to investigate, understand, and, in 
     cooperation with appropriate State, regional, and local 
     authorities, address the relationships between transportation 
     and land use.
       ``(b) Transportation and Land Use Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and 
     experts, including States and other entities eligible for 
     assistance under subsection (d), shall develop and carry out 
     a comprehensive research program to investigate and 
     understand the relationships between transportation, land 
     use, and the environment.
       ``(2) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003, 
     of the sum deducted by the Secretary under section 104(a), 
     not less than $1,000,000 shall be made available to carry out 
     this subsection.
       ``(c) Transportation and Land Use Planning Grants.--
       ``(1) Applications.--The Secretary shall solicit 
     applications for transportation and land use planning grants 
     under this subsection from State, regional, and local 
     agencies, individually or in the form of consortia, to plan, 
     develop, implement, and monitor strategies to integrate 
     transportation and land use plans and practices.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of grants under this 
     subsection shall be--
       ``(A) to support initiatives to reduce the need for costly 
     future highway investments;
       ``(B) to provide access to jobs, services, recreational and 
     educational opportunities, and centers of trade, in a cost-
     effective and efficient manner;
       ``(C) to otherwise improve the efficiency of the 
     transportation system; and
       ``(D) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the environmental 
     impacts of transportation projects.
       ``(3) Preferences.--In selecting recipients of grants under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall give preference to 
     applicants that--
       ``(A) are agencies that have significant responsibilities 
     for transportation and land use; and
       ``(B) submit applications that--
       ``(i) demonstrate a commitment to public involvement; and
       ``(ii) demonstrate a meaningful commitment of non-Federal 
     resources to support the efforts of the project team.
       ``(4) Number.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     make not more than 5 grants under this subsection.
       ``(5) Maximum amount.--A grant made under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year shall be in an amount not greater than 
     $1,000,000.
       ``(d) Transportation and Land Use Policy Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make transportation 
     and land use policy grants to State agencies, metropolitan 
     planning organizations, and local governments to--
       ``(A) recognize significant progress in integrating 
     transportation and land use plans and programs; and
       ``(B) further aid in the implementation of the programs.
       ``(2) Preferences.--In selecting recipients of grants under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall give preference to 
     applicants that--
       ``(A) have instituted transportation processes, plans, and 
     programs that--
       ``(i) are coordinated with adopted State land use policies; 
     and
       ``(ii) are intended to reduce the need for costly future 
     highway investments through adopted State land use policies;
       ``(B) have instituted other policies to promote the 
     integration of land use and transportation, such as--
       ``(i) `green corridors' programs that limit access to major 
     highway corridors to areas targeted for efficient and compact 
     development;
       ``(ii) urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan 
     expansion;
       ``(iii) State spending policies that target funds to areas 
     targeted for growth; and
       ``(iv) other such programs or policies as determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(C) have adopted land use policies that include a 
     mechanism for assessing and avoiding, minimizing, or 
     mitigating potential impacts of transportation development 
     activities on the environment.
       ``(3) Use of grant funds.--Grants made under this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation for--
       ``(A) any project eligible for funding under this title or 
     title 49; and
       ``(B) any other activity relating to transportation and 
     land use that the Secretary determines appropriate, including 
     purchase of land or development easements and activities that 
     are necessary to implement--
       ``(i) transit-oriented development plans;
       ``(ii) traffic calming measures; or
       ``(iii) any other coordinated transportation and land use 
     policy.
       ``(4) Minimum amount.--A grant made under this subsection 
     for a fiscal year shall be in an amount not less than 
     $10,000,000.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account)--
       ``(1) to carry out subsection (c) $3,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003; and
       ``(2) to carry out subsection (d) $50,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 307 the following:


[[Page S3221]]


``307A. Transportation and land use initiative.''.

     SEC. 16. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) for construction of the Appalachian development 
     highway system authorized by section 201 of the Appalachian 
     Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App.) 
     $425,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (2) Transfer and administration of funds.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall transfer the funds made available by 
     paragraph (1) to the Appalachian Regional Commission, which 
     shall be responsible for the administration of the funds.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share under this section 
     shall be 80 percent.
       (c) Delegation to States.--Subject to title 23, United 
     States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall delegate 
     responsibility for completion of construction of each segment 
     of the Appalachian development highway system under this 
     section to the State in which the segment is located, upon 
     request of the State.
       (d) Advance Construction.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may make available amounts authorized by this section in the 
     manner described in section 115(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (e) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized by this section 
     shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if 
     the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, except that--
       (1) the Federal share of the cost of any construction under 
     this section shall be determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) the funds shall remain available until expended.
       (f) Other State Funds.--Funds made available to a State 
     under this section shall not be considered in determining the 
     apportionments and allocations that any State shall be 
     entitled to receive, under title 23, United States Code, and 
     other law, of amounts in the Highway Trust Fund.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join today with 
four of the giants of the first ISTEA--Senators Moynihan, Chafee, 
Lautenberg, and Lieberman to support the ISTEA Reauthorization Act, the 
reauthorization of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act. Their vision of how we should shape transportation in 
this country in the postinterstate era is why we are here today to 
carry that vision into the next century.
  The economic power of California and this Nation can only be 
unleashed if we invest in the means to get our workers to their jobs 
and our exports into international trade. This legislation not only 
will accomplish that vital goal but it will do so without leaving our 
environment in worst shape for generations to come.
  At this time, Senator Moynihan's bill best meets the goals that I 
have set for rewriting our surface transportation law. It is the best 
approach for California, which contributes more in Federal gas taxes 
than any other State. While this legislation is not what I will expect 
in a final bill, it is the best horse for California out of the 
starting gate.
  I look forward to working with colleagues in committee to add 
provisions important to my State, including adding my legislation to 
provide Federal investment in border infrastructure to relieve border 
choke points resulting from increased trade. Senator Moynihan knows 
this is a key issue for the border States.
  Let me tell you briefly why this bill is the best for California 
right now:
  First and foremost, this bill recognizes the responsibility that 
transportation bears to environmental protection by preserving the 
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. Nearly 26 million of 
California's 33 million residents live in an area that fails to meet 
one or more of the EPA's air quality standards. CMAQ must be preserved 
as a separate program targeted to those areas that need alternative 
transportation choices.
  The bill also anticipates the adoption of new standards that will 
increase CMAQ funding for new nonattainment areas while protecting the 
funding levels of current areas. In addition, the bill preserves 
funding for areas that are in maintenance status, a measure that I 
authored in the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act to help 
these areas continue their path toward improved air quality.
  Second, the bill uses up to date factors such as actual vehicle use 
and current population estimates in determining the highway funding 
categories. Those factors help raise California's share of funding. I 
will continue to work with my colleagues in the committee for a fairer 
share of the transportation funds for California, but this is a good 
start.
  Third, the bill continues the Bridge Rehabilitation and Repair 
Program. In 1994, after the Northridge disaster, my colleagues here 
supported my bill that permitted this program to fund seismic retrofit 
projects without needing some other kind of repair first. This program 
is unique in that it permits such funding for local bridges.
  Last, but not least, this bill carries the torch for the basic 
framework of ISTEA. I have heard from my local governments north to 
south in California that ISTEA works. Some change, yes. But the basic 
integrity of this law is sound. I agree with them, and I am proud to 
join the ``ISTEA works team.''
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and 32 other Senators to 
introduce the ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997. This bill recognizes 
the success of the 1991 law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, by reauthorizing it with no major changes.
  Mr. President, 17 Governors endorsed a statement of principles for 
the next surface transportation law that strongly affirmed ISTEA's 
goals and effectiveness in ensuring a sound national transportation 
infrastructure. Included in those goals were these statements: Maintain 
the course set by ISTEA; reauthorize ISTEA with simplification and 
refinement but without significant changes; allocate funds to states 
primarily based on needs; retain the Federal Government's role as a key 
transportation partner to help fund highway, bridge, and transit 
projects and to assure that a national focus remains on mobility, 
connectivity, uniformity, integrity, safety, and research. Their 
message was, plain and simple, ISTEA works.
  Over the past few months, many others, from coast to coast, have 
sounded that message. Some are in the transportation business, others, 
such as mayors, county officials, and environmentalists are not. The 
drumbeat has sounded, that ISTEA works.
  I strongly support that message. ISTEA was bold and innovative, and 
changed the way we think and make decisions about transportation. It 
brought the public into the process. It requires sound planning. It 
promotes energy efficient transportation, research and development. It 
strengthens safety.
  It recognizes that the goal of a transportation system is how best to 
move goods and people, efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. President, ISTEA has worked across this Nation, as witnessed by 
the 32 cosponsors from 17 States. ISTEA has also worked for my home 
State of New Jersey. ISTEA could not have had a better laboratory than 
New Jersey. New Jersey is a corridor State, linking commerce and travel 
to the Northeast and the rest of the country. New Jersey has the 
highest vehicle density of any State in the United States. Thousands of 
heavy duty trucks, only half of which are not registered in New Jersey, 
use New Jersey's roads.
  It is a commuter State, heavily reliant on mass transit. New Jersey's 
transportation infrastructure is heavily used and is significantly 
older than many other State's. We as a State have had to be creative in 
finding ways to maintain the condition of the infrastructure, while 
improving mobility and promoting sound planning.
  Improving mobility reduces congestion, which in turn, improves air 
quality and makes our highways safer. This means that our time is not 
spent in long commutes to work or stuck in traffic. We need to remember 
why sensible transportation funding and planning is important. It's not 
to satisfy some special interest. It's to remember that sound 
transportation systems help cope with growing communities--our 
neighborhoods. Sound transportation systems help to improve mobility to 
transport freight and promote domestic and international commerce, 
making our economy more efficient and creating jobs--our businesses. 
Sound transportation systems help to improve air quality and protect 
the environment--our personal health. In short, transportation can, and 
should, help develop liveable communities and create a better way of 
life.

[[Page S3222]]

  Mr. President, ISTEA was the first step toward this goal. The ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act of 1997 is the next logical step to launch our 
Nation's transportation system into the 21st century.
  The bill we are introducing today recognizes that current levels of 
transportation investment fall short of needs, so it increases 
authorized transportation funding over 6 years and continues the 
emphasis on preservation and maintenance of transportation systems.

  The bill continues to support the scientifically proven link between 
transportation and air quality by bolstering the Congestion Mitigation 
and Air Quality Program.
  The bill supports allocating transportation funds based on need, by 
continuing the bridge program without any changes.
  The bill increases flexibility by making Amtrak eligible for certain 
highway funds, and maintains the flexibility for transit.
  And, the bill recognizes special needs of States with both low and 
high density populations, by providing additional funding.
  Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the effort to revise 
our national highway program to ensure that each State receives 
allocations based on a certain percentage of its gas tax contributions 
to the highway trust fund--the donor-donee issue. This is the wrong way 
to think about transportation funding. It is in the national interest 
to have a Federal transportation policy with national goals. That's how 
we promote interstate and international commerce, further economic 
productivity, protect the environment, and ensure safety. That's why 
decisions to allocate Federal transportation funding should be based on 
need, not on a State's contribution to the highway trust fund. We do 
not allocate airport improvement program funds based on the amount of 
ticket tax that is collected in each State. No Federal programs work 
that way.
  However, if we choose to approach the issue in that context, then we 
must first recognize each State's return on the Federal dollar for all 
Federal programs. New Jersey receives only 68 cents of return on the 
Federal dollar--second to last, just ahead of Connecticut. New 
Jerseyans collectively contribute $15 billion more in Federal payments 
than they receive--that's more than $1,800 per resident.
  Mr. President, if we were to adopt an across-the-board rule to 
require 95 percent return on Federal dollars, consider what would 
happen if we apply that test to other programs. New Jersey would then 
receive $169 million more for agriculture subsidies, $2.1 billion more 
of defense spending, and about $55 million more for child and family 
health services funding.
  Mr. President, national transportation funding should continue to be 
allocated based on national goals and State needs like other Federal 
programs.
  Mr. President, ISTEA has worked for our cities, our counties, our 
environment, and for economic development. Let us build on the success 
of the past and not turn the clock back on transportation progress.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 6 years ago, thanks to the leadership of 
Senators Moynihan and C0hafee, this Nation made a fundamental change in 
the way that it allocates public investment in transportation. That 
change was based on the premises that local people understand local 
needs, that funding should be flexible, and that transportation should 
contribute to meeting national environmental and public health goals.
  I made a commitment to myself and to Vermonters that I would only 
sponsor legislation that embodies those three premises. Today I 
announce that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act of 1997, and I look forward to doing whatever I can 
to ensure that this progressive legislation makes it through the Senate 
and into law.
  This bill maintains and enhances our transportation commitments in 
ways that will benefit Vermonters. I fought hard to include the 
provision that will allow the State of Vermont the flexibility to use 
Federal funds for Amtrak service. Our small State has two successful 
Amtrak trains, both of which operate because of the leadership shown by 
Governor Dean and the legislature. If this provision passes it will 
mean that Amtrak service in Vermont can be maintained and possibly even 
expanded.
  This bill also protects transportation flexibility that has been so 
popular in Vermont. It maintains the recreational trails and scenic 
byways programs, and allows States to continue to use funds for bicycle 
transportation and pedestrian walkways. I will continue to fight for 
these programs in the coming months.
  Finally, this bill will bring more resources to Vermont. Out small 
State lies on a major north-south truck route. Much of this traffic 
passes through Vermont without stopping for fuel. Consequently, our 
roads get a lot of the wear and tear that goes along with commerce, 
without the accompanying gas tax receipts. This legislation provides 
Vermont with a major boost in highway funding, so that we can better 
maintain and repair our existing roads.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who have not yet done 
so to join me and the bipartisan group of 32 other Senators who have 
committed themselves to the ISTEA reauthorization bill of 1997.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I'm delighted to join with Senator 
Moynihan and Senators Lautenberg, Chafee, Dodd, and numerous other 
colleagues to introduce the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Reauthorization Act of l997.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I was 
proud to have worked hard with Senator Moynihan and others to craft 
ISTEA in l991. Without a doubt, ISTEA was the most significant and 
innovative transportation legislation of a generation. It recognized 
that our Nation is now reaching a maturing system of transportation. 
With our Interstate system built, ISTEA moved us to also focus on 
maintenance, intermodalism, efficiency, funding flexibility, and 
environmental protection.
  So often today we hear complaints about laws and programs that don't 
work. ISTEA is a law that has worked and is working--very well. It's 
one area where we don't need to reinvent government--we did that in 
l991 when we adopted ISTEA. That's why Governors, mayors, county 
officials, guilders unions, environmental groups, planners, businessmen 
and women, and others are telling us to reauthorize the law with 
minimal change. That was the resounding message I heard in Connecticut 
at a forum yesterday from a broad range of interests.
  Let me spend a few minutes reviewing why ISTEA is so important.
  In a very unique way, ISTEA combines this country's long-standing 
commitment to our national priorities--a national system of 
transportation central to our economic growth and our commitment to 
protecting and enhancing our environment--with a new emphasis on 
responding to local conditions, priorities, and interests and involving 
the public in this decisionmaking process.
  The statement of policy that introduces ISTEA reminds us that the 
economic health of the country depends on access to an efficient 
transportation system. It reads as follows:

       It is the policy of the United States to develop a national 
     intermodal transportation system that is economically 
     efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation 
     for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move 
     people and goods in an efficient manner.

  ISTEA's commitment to a national transportation system includes 
dedicated sources of funding to preserve, restore, and rehabilitate our 
Interstate highways and bridges. In many areas of the country, like my 
own, our infrastructure is older and densely traveled. We need 
dedicated sources of funding for these programs to help ensure an 
efficient transportation system for our entire Nation.
  Second, ISTEA recognized that there is an inextricable link between 
transportation and the quality of our environment, particularly our air 
quality. Automobiles are a large contributor to our smog, carbon 
monoxide, and particulate matter pollution. As Americans drive more and 
more miles, the pollution control gains from cleaner cars get wiped 
out.
  The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program is one 
of the most innovative programs created under ISTEA. It is providing $1

[[Page S3223]]

billion per year for projects to reduce air pollution. These funds are 
being used to help States restore air quality to healthy levels. This 
program is the opposite of the so-called unfunded mandates--it provides 
Federal funds to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. In 
Connecticut where our air quality is so bad, this program provides an 
important source of funding to help us move toward clean air. Stamford, 
Greenwich, and Norwalk, for example, made innovative use of these 
funds. Our bill would substantially increase funding for this program.

  While recognizing these national priorities, ISTEA also makes nearly 
one-half of all funds available for State and local decisionmaking. The 
transportation needs of Connecticut are different from the needs of 
Montana, and this program allows each area to decide what's right for 
them, again, within the context of protecting a national transportation 
system. And for the first time, it allowed local decisionmakers to 
spend funds on either highways or transit. This leveling of the playing 
field between transit and highways is very important for many areas of 
the country, including my own.
  ISTEA also created a popular program known as Transportation 
Enhancements which provides a small amount of funding to mitigate some 
of the negative effects transportation has caused for our local 
communities. I heard yesterday at a forum in Connecticut how funds were 
used from this program to restore a recreational and open space 
corridor along the abandoned right of way of the former Farmington 
Canal and the Boston and Main Railroad. This project was selected as 
one of the Nation's 25 best enhancement projects. We've also used funds 
from this program to help restore some of our coastal wetlands, to 
protect and enhance the landscape of our famous Merritt Parkway and for 
the restoration of the Route 8 and Route 15 interchanges.
  We should also not forget the important process changes made by 
ISTEA. The law gave local decisionmakers and the public a much greater 
role in making the transportation decisions that so affect their 
communities. In Connecticut, mayors and other local elected officials 
strongly support this approach. In fact, I heard from mayors at a forum 
yesterday that ISTEA's planning provisions have led to greater 
cooperation between central cities and their suburban neighbors on a 
wide variety of issues--extending beyond transportation.
  Unfortunately, despite ISTEA's record of achievement, our efforts to 
reauthorize it will not be easy. ISTEA is under attack. A significant 
number of Senators already support proposals which would eliminate many 
of the fundamental bases of ISTEA, including much of our commitment to 
a national transportation system. Instead, these proposals would turn 
much of the program into essentially a block grant, where I'm concerned 
our national priorities for our transportation system would be lost. 
The funds would be distributed based on how much money each State is 
contributing to the Highway Trust Fund in gasoline taxes rather than 
looking to the Nation's infrastructure needs and also focusing funding 
on those systems that require preservation and enhancement. In short, 
these proposals would largely abandon the Federal role in 
transportation which is so essential to support national economic 
growth, global competitiveness, and the quality of life in our 
communities.
  I congratulate my friend and colleague Senator Moynihan and his staff 
for their outstanding work in putting this bill together. I look 
forward to working with him and my other colleagues as we move through 
this process.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending Senator Moynihan and 
the other bipartisan sponsors for their leadership on this important 
issue. The stakes are very high. The strength of our economy is 
directly tied to the quality of our transportation. This is no time to 
turn back the clock on ISTEA and its well-balanced commitment to seven 
key points: Highways; public transit; environmental protection; 
bikeways, recreational trails, and historic preservation; computerized 
traffic management; safety; and a strong voice for local communities in 
the allocation of funds.
  In all of these areas, ISTEA has worked well and deserves to be 
continued.
  This is our reply to the STEP 21 coalition and the Western coalition. 
Their proposals are blatant schemes to gerrymander the funding formula 
against our States and undermine other key aspects of ISTEA, and 
they're not acceptable.
  They say their States should get back from the Treasury in ISTEA 
funds what they pay into the Treasury in gas tax revenues. But that 
kind of tunnel vision is distorting this debate. It's wrong to focus 
narrowly just on transportation spending versus gas tax revenues. The 
only fair comparison is between overall Federal spending that goes into 
a State, and the overall Federal tax revenues that come from that 
State.
  By that standard, our States are donor States. We send more to 
Washington than we get back in return. The States complaining the 
loudest about not getting their fair share of Federal transportation 
dollars are huge net winners in the overall picture. They get back far 
more in Federal spending than they pay into the Treasury. And they're 
trying to grab even more through ISTEA. I say, they should keep their 
hands out of the ISTEA cookie jar.
  We have enormous transportation needs in our States, and those needs 
deserve strong Federal support. Working together, we intend to do all 
we can to chart a fair transportation course for the coming years. I 
look forward to that challenge and to our successful efforts together.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Lautenberg, Senator 
Lieberman, and many others today to introduce the ISTEA Reauthorization 
Act of 1997. This law builds on the success of the last 6 years of 
ISTEA, and will guide more than $175 billion in Federal highway 
spending over the next 6 years.
  Few laws we enact this year will have as much of an immediate and 
significant affect on our economy than the ISTEA reauthorization bill. 
The transportation industry employs 12 million people, consumes 20 
percent of total household spending, and accounts for 11 percent of our 
Nation's total economic activity. Highways are the most important 
component of our transportation infrastructure, and their use is 
growing. Between 1984 and 1994, U.S. motor vehicle travel increased 
37.5 percent.
  Over the past 6 years, the Intermodal Surface Transportation and 
Efficiency Act has provided the basis for a strong Federal-State-local 
partnership to help the Nation meet its transportation needs. It has 
directed $157 billion into highways, mass transit, and related 
transportation priorities nationwide. It is one of the most successful 
intergovernmental partnerships in American history. Under ISTEA, we 
completed the system of Interstate and Defense Highways begun by 
President Eisenhower 40 years ago, defined the National Highway System 
that will help prioritize highway improvements for decades to come, and 
coordinated planning among different transportation modes.
  ISTEA has improved the capacity and overall condition of our 
transportation infrastructure. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, our highways and bridges are in better shape than they 
were a few years ago. Our environment is in better condition too, 
thanks to ISTEA innovations like the congestion mitigation and air 
quality and transportation enhancement programs.
  Despite our success, we continue to face enormous challenges over the 
next 6 years to maintain and improve our highways and bridges. Over 
this time, it will cost an estimated $148.5 billion just to maintain 
the current physical conditions of our highways. Every year, we must 
renew 100,000 miles of highways in order to maintain current pavement 
conditions.
  My own State of Illinois will need several billion dollars to repair 
aging roads and bridges. According to some estimates, nearly 43 percent 
of Illinois roads need repair, and almost one-fourth of Illinois 
bridges are in substandard condition. Every year, Illinois motorists 
pay an estimated $1 billion

[[Page S3224]]

in vehicle wear and tear and other expenses associated with poor road 
conditions.
  In Chicago, the transportation hub of the Nation, the traffic flow on 
some of the major arterial highways has increased seven-fold since they 
were built in the 1950's and 1960's. According to a recent study, 
Chicago is the fifth most congested city in the Nation. The typical 
Chicago-area driver wastes 34 hours every year sitting still in traffic 
jams, and pays $470 a year in lost time and wasted fuel.
  In order to meet the transportation infrastructure needs of Illinois 
and the Nation, the Federal Government must continue to play a lead 
role in the ongoing partnership to improve America's highways. If there 
were ever a legislative case in point for the saying, ``If it's not 
broken, don't fix it,'' ISTEA is it.
  The ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 is a simple bill. It builds on 
the success of the last 6 years. It does not represent a set of major 
policy changes. It provides a significant increase in funding over 
ISTEA levels, updates some of the funding formulas, and increases 
flexibility for States, all within the constructs defined by ISTEA. I 
hope the Environment and Public Works Committee will use this bill as 
the basis for its deliberations on ISTEA reauthorization, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important 
legislation.
  I want to point out that this legislation does not reauthorize the 
mass transit half of ISTEA. That job falls on the Banking Committee. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and with 
others who have a strong interest in transit to ensure the next 6 years 
of transit policy also mirror the successful framework of transit 
policy defined by ISTEA.
  As we head into the 21st century, we must continue to maintain and 
improve America's transportation infrastructure. In the global economy, 
one of the things that makes our products competitive is our ability to 
move freight across the country cheaply and efficiently. The ISTEA 
Reauthorization Act of 1997 will accomplish that goal by continuing the 
success of ISTEA into the next 6 years.

                          ____________________