[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6359-S6372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Levin, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 956. A bill to amend section 7(m) of the Small Business Act to 
establish a Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program; to the Committee 
on Small Business.


        The Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its 
appropriate referral.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Welfare-to-Work 
Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997, and I do so with Senators Bumpers, 
Harkin, Grassley, Landrieu, Cleland, Lieberman, Wellstone, Levin, 
Snowe, and Lautenberg. I thank and congratulate all of them for their 
commitment to this important program. This legislation will assure that 
Americans who have had to rely on public assistance have the same 
opportunities as other Americans to start and operate a small business.
  Mr. President, America is the home of the entrepreneurial frontier. 
Here, anyone can explore boundless opportunities to try new things, to 
begin again, and to build new lives. Americans have inherited 
characteristics from the frontiersmen--embracing risk, change, and 
individualism--and applied it directly to starting and expanding 
American small businesses. As the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee and a Senator from Massachusetts, I am honored to represent a 
State that employs more and more people and continues to fuel the 
national economy and job market. Massachusetts' 360,000 small firms are 
employing over 50 percent of our workers. From 1991 to 1995, all 
American businesses with fewer than 500 employees created 11 million 
new jobs, while businesses with more than 500 employees cut three 
million jobs overall.
  I want to open the entrepreneurial frontier to all Americans who want 
to leave the welfare system behind and build new lives for themselves 
and their children.
  The Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program is geared to assist 
people in moving people from welfare into the work force, not just as 
workers but as entrepreneurs. It is more than a jobs bill. It will not 
only build businesses, but it will build communities. This bill builds 
on the foundation of the SBA's remarkable Microloan Program which 
allows businesses and startup companies to receive development 
counseling and small loans of up to $25,000. The average microloan size 
is only $10,800. Under the Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program 
local organizations will serve welfare recipients by using SBA grants 
for intensive business development assistance. In addition, the bill 
will allow local organizations to help future business owners overcome 
two of the greatest obstacles that they have, access to affordable 
transportation and convenient child care.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation--to 
assure that the American dream can be realized by all Americans and 
future generations. We must build a system now that will help our 
children. One in five of America's children--14.3 million--live in 
poverty. Two-thirds of welfare recipients are children. If we want to 
lift them up and out of poverty, we must give them new opportunities to 
explore and benefit from the resources of America's frontier. We must 
act now to provide their parents and guardians with a map across the 
entrepreneurial frontier.
  Mr. President, the fact is that this type of program has already 
worked, and I just want to share a couple of quick examples with you. 
One of the people who has already received this type of grant under the 
Microloan Pilot Project is Karla Brown, owner of Ashmont Flowers Plus 
in Boston. In 1990, she found herself divorced with a young daughter, a 
mountain of debt, bad credit and unemployed as a result of major 
surgery. After being on disability for 3 years, she decided to start 
her own business. In 1993, she started selling flowers at a subway 
station. As the business grew, she leveraged the resources of local 
organizations, developed a business plan, received an SBA funded 
Microloan, and opened a store in Codman Square, a critical commercial 
node in a low-income neighborhood in Boston. With a $19,000 loan from 
the Jewish Vocational Service in Boston and a tremendous commitment to 
become a successful entrepreneur, she is now the proud owner of a 
business that has annual sales of $100,000 and employs two people part-
time. Karla Brown's big idea of a flower shop was one of many new 
businesses applauded by an article entitled ``SBA Microloans Fuel Big 
Ideas'' in a recent issue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's magazine.
  Karla is joined by others on this entrepreneurial frontier. In 1995, 
the Western Massachusetts Enterprise Fund made a loan of less than 
$10,000 to a divorced, single mother who was receiving public 
assistance. The woman believed in her own skills as a hairdresser and 
her own personal efforts. With the help of her community organization, 
she developed a marketing plan, targeted special underserved markets--
homebound elderly, group home residents' and disabled people--and, in 
just 2 years, she is now busy with appointments all day long and has 
never missed a loan payment. In fact, under the SBA's Microloan 
Program, the Government has not lost one dime in the 6 years of 
operation because loan repayment rates are so high. The reason this 
program is so successful is because the SBA provides grants for 
technical assistance for the loan recipients and helps to make certain 
that these ventures are successful.

  Another Massachusetts organization, Jobs for Fall River, Inc., saw 
the potential in a 35-year-old woman who was relying on welfare while 
caring for her elderly mother and her young son. She wanted to start a 
business to design clothing. Her first attempt at the enterprise failed 
because she was not able to afford the child care, transportation 
costs, and operating costs for running the business without a loan. 
However, after attending an 8-week intensive training session, she was 
able, through the assistance of Jobs for Fall River and SBA-provided 
funding, to develop a business plan and receive a loan in May of 1996.
  We can open the entrepreneurial frontier for more Americans on public 
assistance with the Welfare to Work Microloan Pilot Program--partnering 
the resources of the SBA with local organizations like the Western 
Massachusetts Enterprise Fund, Jobs for Fall River, and the Jewish 
Vocation Services in Boston.
  During a recent hearing before the Small Business Committee, an 
inspiring witness from Iowa, Mr. John Else of the Institute of Social 
and Economic Development, told of the successes his organization is 
working with welfare recipients under the SBA Microloan Program. 
Individuals in their program have a business success rate that is three 
times higher than the average for new businesses. His testament, 
combined with the requests of other local organizations for more 
flexibility to help this community, convinced me that we need to expand 
the success of this program.
  Opening the frontier for more small businesses is critical to 
achieving the aims of welfare reform. States are now facing tall goals 
to reduce the welfare roles--their caseloads must be reduced by 25 
percent this year under the new law. The growth in job creation is 
directly parallel to the growth in small businesses. In America today, 
there are over 22 million small businesses compared with only 14,000 
big businesses. We see more women than ever exploring the 
entrepreneurial frontier. Women-owned businesses represent one-third of 
all U.S. companies, contribute more than $1.5 trillion in sales to the 
U.S. economy, and employ more people than the Fortune 500. Women-owned 
sole proprietorships have a start-up rate twice that of male-owned

[[Page S6360]]

businesses. It is important for us to help women move into 
entrepreneurial roles because women comprise a large share of welfare 
roles. I suggest that the program I am introducing today is an 
excellent way to move people from welfare into the marketplace, not 
just as workers and wage earners, but as business creators, as people 
who will be able to provide jobs for other people as well as gain their 
own self-sufficiency.
  Because the record shows that during the 6 years of the Microloan 
pilot project the Federal Government has not suffered one loss, we 
ought to be prepared to replicate these results with programs that 
create more jobs and enhance the economy. I hope my colleagues will 
support this effort.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Welfare-
to-Work Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997. The existing Small 
Business Administration [SBA] Microloan Program has enjoyed great 
success in moving people off welfare and helping them start their own 
business. The welfare-to-work initiative will not only continue this 
success, but it will also improve the services provided by the current 
Microloan Program.
  The existing Microloan Program has two components. First, it works to 
provide short-term loans of up to $25,000 to small businesses. SBA 
makes these loans through various nonprofit organizations that have 
close ties to their communities. Second, the Microloan Program also 
provides technical assistance to help clients learn important skills 
such as accounting, marketing, and advertising.
  It is important that we continue the Microloan Program, and we must 
also look to implement other services that will make it more effective. 
The welfare-to-work initiative does just that by establishing a 3-year 
program that will continue and expand upon the existing program. Like 
the current law, this bill will extend loans and technical assistance, 
but it will also allow for more business planning and training 
assistance prior to extending loans to welfare recipients. It will also 
allow intermediaries to use supplemental grants to help borrowers with 
transportation and child care expenses. Extending these services is 
essential in order to allow welfare recipients who don't have the money 
for transportation and child care to participate in the program.
  An example of the Microloan Program's success is the Institute for 
Social and Economic Development [ISED] in Iowa City, IA. ISED is 
different from most development corporations in the Microloan Program 
because it does not extend loans to its clients. Rather, it provides 
technical assistance and will act as an intermediary to set up a loan 
between their client and a bank. ISED's technical assistance program 
provides structured training in which clients develop plans for a 
profitable business. Due to this effort, ISED has enjoyed an extremely 
high success rate, with 70 percent of its client's businesses still 
operational. This statistic becomes even more impressive considering 
that of all the small businesses started across the Nation in the last 
8 years over 70 percent no longer exist.
  We must recognize that the welfare-to-work initiative benefits both 
welfare recipients and our taxpayers. The Microloan Program presents 
welfare recipients with the preferable option of self-employment as a 
means to move off welfare. At the same time, it saves the State money 
and moves people from being welfare recipients to taxpayers. In Iowa, 
nearly 400 welfare recipients have started and maintained their own 
small business, and the total savings to the State have been $1 million 
in welfare benefits alone.
  The welfare-to-work initiative gives welfare recipients the 
opportunity to be self-sufficient. It provides the entrepreneur with 
the money to start a business, and the skills and services to maintain 
it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bond, Mr. Mack, 
        and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 957. A bill to establish a Pension ProSave system which improves 
the retirement income security of millions of American workers by 
encouraging employers to make pension contributions on behalf of 
employees, by facilitating pension portability, by perserving and 
increasing retirement savings, and by simplifying pension law; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


     The Retirement Security for all Americans Pension Pro-Save Act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the problem of retirement security is an 
ever mounting challenge to the future welfare of our Nation. More than 
51 million Americans are not covered by any kind of pension plan. The 
aging of the baby boom generation will dramatically increase the 
retired population in proportion to the working population early in the 
next century. By the year 2029, when the youngest baby boomers reach 
age 65, more than 68 million persons will be older than 65--accounting 
for more than 20 percent of the U.S. population, compared to just 12 
percent today.
  In my own State of New Mexico just 29 percent of our work force has 
some kind of pension plan. As this chart shows, New Mexico has the 
worst ranking in the nation in terms of workers covered by pensions. 
Just a few states have private sector working populations with over 50 
percent covered by pensions.
  Our Nation is facing certain crisis if we fail to take steps to 
correct this problem of people working until retirement--and finding 
that their Social Security benefits fail to maintain adequate and 
acceptable living standards. Despite the proliferation of retirement 
products in various forms of IRA's and 401(K) plans, patterns clearly 
show that those who earn enough to save probably do. Our problem is 
that over the last 18 years, we have had no increase in the percentage 
of our work force that is participating in a qualified pension program.
  Those who are well off and can look forward to retirement security 
cannot afford to just abandon those who are not. We have a market 
failure that we must address, particularly as the Nation's traditional 
safety net is being rolled back because of budget cuts on so many other 
fronts. I am not opposed to improving and even expanding the pension 
plans of those who have them now. My concerns, however, are focused on 
the reality that we are improving existing pension plans, expanding IRA 
opportunities and creating new forms of individual retirement accounts, 
but we are still doing absolutely nothing to get a large portion of our 
uncovered work force covered by some degree of retirement savings.
  The costs of doing what we need to do will be large. But let's think 
for a moment about the IRA provisions in the tax bill we are discussing 
today. The IRA expansion provisions in the Senate version of the bill 
cost approximately $3.3 billion during the first 5 years and $20.5 
billion in the following 5 years. These costs may be appropriate and 
necessary--but at the same time, we need to confront the revenue impact 
of covering the parts of our society that currently have no retirement 
savings at all. I think that it is poor public policy to expand only 
one-half of the equation like we have been doing.
  Mr. President, in order to ensure that this Congress does face the 
issue of retirement security for all working Americans and not just the 
fortunate minority who are saving, I am here to introduce the 
``Retirement Security for All Americans Pension Pro-Save Act.''
  The bill I am introducing outlines a concept for pension expansion 
and portability that has been discussed in this Chamber several times 
over the last several decades but which has not evolved until now as 
legislation. The Pension ProSave System, a clearinghouse for individual 
pension accounts, would improve the retirement income security of 
millions of working Americans by encouraging employees to make 
contributions on their behalf, by facilitating pension portability, by 
preserving and significantly increasing retirement savings and by 
simplifying pension law.

  Mr. President, this plan is not aimed at the existing pension and 
savings structures in this country. This proposal targets those who are 
working their way towards retirement--and will have little or nothing 
to supplement their Social Security benefits. Despite 18 years of 
availability of simplified pension plans, pension coverage remains low 
in the small business sector. Even when covered by a tax-advantaged 
pension plan, workers do not always continue to save their pension 
assets when they can receive them when

[[Page S6361]]

moving from one place of employment to another. Tax penalties 
unfortunately have not been very successful in discouraging the 
spending of these mid-career retirement savings disbursements. Of the 
$47.9 billion in pre-retirement distributions made in 1990, less than 
20% of recipients reported putting the entire distribution into another 
tax-qualified retirement plan.
  The Pension ProSave Clearinghouse is modeled after the highly 
successful Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College 
Retirement Equity Fund [TIAA-CREF], the largest private pension system 
in the world with assets over $136 billion and about 1.7 million 
participants at about 5,500 institutions. Not replacing existing 
pension programs, Pension ProSave is designed to supplement these other 
programs and will increase pension coverage to millions of Americans.
  The benefits of Pension ProSave are first, that this plan would 
provide an incentive and a simple, hassle free way for employers to 
provide portable pension benefits to their workers. Employees could 
also make matching contributions to their accounts on a 2:1 basis to a 
maximum of $6,000. The employer's contributions also would not exceed 
$6,000. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that these are the 
employee's accounts--not the government's and not the employer's. These 
accounts will remain with those workers the duration of their lives.
  Second, Pension ProSave would stop the leakage of retirement savings 
by furnishing employer's pension contributions into a privately 
managed, pension portability clearinghouse. Worker's account balances 
would be invested and managed by private sector firms in diversified 
portfolios.
  Let me explain how Pension ProSave would work. Any employer wishing 
to take advantage of the Pension ProSave Program would furnish the 
names of all employees, employed for at least 6 months and over 21 
years of age, to the ProSave Portability Clearinghouse established in 
this Act. The employer will indicate each employee's salary and the 
uniform percentage of all salaries which the employer will contribute 
to employee ProSave accounts. The employer will have the option of 
changing its percentage contribution each year, as long as 
that contribution equals at least 1 percent. This can help business 
owners--who want to provide pension benefits to their employees--avoid 
getting locked into a rate that remains fixed while the economic 
performance of their small businesses may be volatile.

  Once a ProSave account is established for an employee, the employer 
will forward contributions to the account at the time of each paycheck 
or at least prior to the end of that year.
  With the agreement of the employee, an employer who has another 
defined benefit or defined contribution plan for its employees and who 
does not choose to establish ProSave accounts will still be able to use 
the portability clearinghouse as a repository for retirement funds of 
an employee who is leaving its employ. When a worker leaves one job 
where retirement benefits have accrued, the employee may request the 
employer to deposit the cash value of those retirement benefits--or any 
portion of them--in the Pro Save account of the employee at the 
portability clearinghouse.
  Mr. President, the funds contributed by an employer to the retirement 
security of his or her employees by way of a ProSave account will 
remain there and be invested at the direction of the employee until 
retirement. The portability clearinghouse will contract with investment 
firms to manage funds through the clearinghouse. Investment options 
would include a fixed income fund, an equity fund, a government 
securities fund, small business capitalization fund, an international 
fund, and an infrastructure fund. Accounts would be valued on a daily 
basis, and participants could transfer funds among investment accounts 
at intervals determined by an oversight board, perhaps at monthly or 
quarterly intervals. Employers will have no responsibility for 
administering a pension fund or managing funds for employees who have 
left their employment. This should be very attractive to businesses 
that do not desire to carry long-term responsibilities for workers who 
have moved on.
  While employer contributions are locked into the Pension ProSave 
accounts until retirement, funds contributed by the employee are 
available to be loaned for certain purposes and under terms established 
by the Portability Clearinghouse Board.
  At retirement, account balances would be paid out either in the form 
of an annuity--with survivor benefits--or a lump sum retirement. 
Spousal consent would be required.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that some who oppose this plan will 
rattle the cages and make claims that this act is nothing but more big 
Government, another bureaucratic institution that spreads the 
Government further into our lives. These claims will be wrong--and will 
only serve to help maintain an economic reality that permits those best 
off in our society to save up to $30,000 a year on a tax-advantaged 
basis. Others in simple 401(k) plans can save up to $9,500 a year. It 
is unacceptable that workers who don't have an available pension plan--
can only save $2,000 a year in IRA accounts.
  We have a responsibility not only to create a more equitable savings 
structure for those Americans who have the desire and wherewithal to 
save--but also to the many Americans who are low-income workers who 
move from job to job eventually to retirement, finding then that 
nothing has accrued to help them in their retirement years.
  Government had a role in establishing IRA's and 401(k)'s. Now we must 
do what we can to provide incentives to employers to provide modest 
retirement security for more employees. This plan is an enabler--it 
creates a structure, similar in many ways to the TIAA-CREF model 
established at the beginning of this century by Andrew Carnegie to 
provide pension portability for professors and university employees 
moving between one higher education institution and another.
  This is an issue in which the Government does have an important role 
to play because the market has failed to provide the extension of 
pension coverage to 51 million Americans. Pension ProSave promotes 
savings, helps more people reach retirement with pensions, helps buffer 
against the turbulence of the economy, and provides many employers with 
a good vehicle for profit-sharing. All of these are benefits for our 
Nation as a whole.
  For the employer, Pension ProSave provides a hassle-free, no red-tape 
way to make contributions to a pension--and frees employers from the 
responsibility and requirement of administering a pension plan.
  The plan also increases the amount of the tax-deferred savings 
permitted for the employer and each employee. It gives the employer a 
vehicle for profit-sharing, and the employer escapes any and all 
responsibility for the employee's pension. Funds contributed to Pension 
ProSave will be exempt from other savings limits under current law for 
other pension products. This should provide a powerful incentive to 
owners of small businesses who can save more themselves if they make 
equivalent commitments to their employees.
  For the employee, the benefits are most importantly that millions of 
pension-uncovered workers in this country will get coverage. This plan 
increases the amount of tax-deferred savings permitted to each 
employee, provides immediate vesting, and removes the concern that 
employees might have about the solvency of pension plans or their 
previous employers. Among other benefits, Pension ProSave eliminates 
political corruption in the administration of pension funds and 
provides one account that can be permanently maintained and in which 
funds can continually accrue no matter the number of job changes in a 
worker's career.
  By having national visibility, Pension ProSave would make the concept 
of saving for retirement more attractive and appealing to employees. 
This plan would increase employer pension contributions on behalf of 
their workers without existing pension plans, rather than relying on 
401(k) plans that are funded largely by employees' voluntary saving 
decisions. Employers would be able to make voluntary, tax-deductible 
contributions on behalf of their workers and would have flexibility in 
the amount they contribute each year.
  Vesting would be immediate. Plan sponsors would be relieved of the 
expense and responsibility of providing financial education to their 
employees

[[Page S6362]]

and the legal implications of providing investment options.
  Mr. President, I think that one cause of the extraordinary economic 
anxiety in our Nation is related to the eroding sense of financial 
security at retirement. A recent study of workers' views of their 
present and future economic circumstances found that most people 
believe that despite the twists, turns, and pitfalls in our rapidly 
changing economy, they can chart a successful course to retirement. But 
their anxiety levels were extremely high when concerns about the 
solvency of Social Security and about the great number of Americans 
without pension benefits were mentioned.
  Americans include retirement security in their personal strategies 
for economic success. I believe that America is calling for a credible 
proposal that will get more of our citizens covered by some kind of 
pensions.
  There is no doubt that the costs will be high and will impact the 
Nation's short term tax revenue. However, it is also clear that 
increasing retirement savings will help bolster national savings, which 
will help spur more long-term investment and economic growth. The high 
cost of this plan would be true of any plan that succeeds in 
establishing more retirement security for our working population. We 
seem to be willing to sustain high costs for expanding retirement 
opportunities for some; I just think we need to make sure that we are 
doing whatever we can to provide retirement savings coverage to the 
rest of society.
  These are costs that we must consider and should bear--for the long 
term benefit of our Nation in whole. Establishing Pension Pro-Save 
accounts is an investment that will help our Nation better able to cope 
with the retirement savings crisis that we will certainly face in the 
future.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the Pension ProSave Act with Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. 
Senator Bingaman has done yeoman's work in drafting this bill. I hope 
my colleagues will take time to read the bill and join us as 
cosponsors.
  As the average age of Americans is rising at a steady rate, we all 
have become more aware of the importance of retirement programs and 
retirement security. At the same time, only about half of all workers 
are covered by a retirement program--and of those, many who are 
covered, work for a Federal, State, or local government entity. An 
incredible 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses, those 
with fewer than 20 employees, have no private retirement or pension 
coverage. Less than 40 percent of the 33 million Americans aged 65 and 
older collect a pension, other than Social Security. These numbers are 
cause for concern.
  There are three sources for retirement security: Social Security, 
personal savings and a pension. Our bill has been offered in an effort 
to expand pension coverage, especially among small business 
establishments where coverage and participation is least likely to 
occur. The complexity and expense involved in setting up a pension plan 
is daunting. It is outside the grasp of many small businesses. In 
addition to administrative complexity and the cost of hiring an 
actuary, accountant and a lawyer to set up a plan, a small business 
often decides against plan sponsorship because of laws and regulations 
that actually discriminate against them, such as the prohibition on 
matching contributions for self-employed individuals, or limitations on 
contributions for small plans that are even lower than those permitted 
for the medium-sized or large pension plan.
  Pension ProSave would permit the establishment of either a simplified 
defined contribution or a defined benefit pension plan or both, with 
greatly reduced recordkeeping, reporting and regulatory requirements. 
The ProSave system encourages thrift, through its defined contribution 
provisions, which are individual account plans and similar in concept 
to an IRA or a 401(k) plan, and through its simplified defined benefit 
plan provisions which are traditional pension plans promising a 
specific benefit payment upon retirement.
  In addition, one of the most appealing features of Pension ProSave is 
the portability clearinghouse. The clearinghouse would make it easier 
for workers with ProSave accounts to take their pensions with them as 
they change jobs. True pension portability has been a most elusive 
objective for policymakers and yet it is one of the most important 
features that Americans want in pension programs.
  A lack of portability also discourages long-term pension savings 
because it can encourage leakage. Pension system leakage occurs when a 
worker changes jobs and either cashes out a pension benefit or receives 
a lump sum distribution from a retirement plan and spends the money, 
rather than saving it. Taxing distributions has not stopped leakage 
from the system. The more difficult it is for that worker to transfer 
his account from one plan to another, the more likely it is that the 
worker will just spend the money. The more complicated and punitive the 
laws and regulations surrounding pension rollovers, the less likely a 
worker is to bother to make one. He or she will simply pay the penalty 
tax and spend the money.
  Consequently, pension experts have spent a great deal of time and 
effort trying to figure out ways to ease these pension rollovers and 
overcome obstacles to portability so that people can save their all 
retirement money in a single account.
  Let me pause for a moment to say that while Pension ProSave's 
portability feature is the result of many years of consultation and 
careful drafting, we realize that it would be quite difficult to 
justify a new government sponsored entity in these days of fiscal 
stringency. Our experience with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. 
leads me to suggest that there could be a more efficient means of 
making Pension ProSave accounts portable than by establishing a new 
government sponsored entity to manage and invest them.
  Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are portable and yet can be 
invested in banks, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, equities or 
any number of other investment vehicles. Should we permit Pension 
ProSave accounts to be managed and invested in the private sector and 
if so, how should that be accomplished? By leveraging the power of the 
private sector, savers have the potential for more investment choices, 
and for higher rates of return on their investments. In addition, there 
currently exists in the private sector, mutual fund/401(k) 
clearinghouses which are used to track individual accounts and keep 
records of investments and account balances. Are these models for the 
Pension ProSave clearinghouse?
  I look forward to hearing about these and other substantive and 
drafting issues from experts who are concerned about increasing 
retirement savings at the individual level and in increasing retirement 
coverage among small businesses where it is needed the most. I am 
especially interested in the concept of a simplified defined benefit 
plan which is portable and hope that we can explore that issue when 
hearings are held on this bill in the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. Pension ProSave Act is a good bill. I am proud to cosponsor 
it and thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership in bringing us 
together to introduce it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 958. A bill to provide for the redesignation of a portion of State 
Route 17 in New York and Pennsylvania as Interstate Route 86; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


       The Redesignation of Route 17 as Interstate 86 Act of 1997

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished 
fellow Senator from New York to introduce legislation that will 
redesignate sections of New York and Pennsylvania Route 17 as 
Interstate 86. The southern tier of New York has waited over 40 years 
for this historic legislation that will correct a mistake made in 1955 
that has contributed to the economic decline of this once prosperous 
region.
  When the original plans were being developed for the New York 
Interstate System, Route 17 was to be designated the main east-west 
interstate route. The (Federal) Bureau of Public Roads thought 
otherwise. They preferred the New York State Thruway which was already 
under construction using state moneys. Albany did not object nor did 
representatives of the region.
  The error had no significance at the time, since no special funding 
was

[[Page S6363]]

available for interstates. The very next year, however, the Federal-Aid 
Highway Act of 1956 was enacted, creating a Highway Trust Fund to be 
funded through gasoline taxes. The Federal Government would now pay 90 
percent of the cost of any interstate segment. The Southern Tier 
Expressway--Route 17--was not eligible for those interstate funds.
  In the 1950's the region was still bustling--IBM was in Binghamton, 
half the television sets in the world were built in Elmira, Corning was 
a high tech contender, and Jamestown was a major manufacturing center. 
What begun as an Indian trail, became a great railroad, and a 
strikingly creative industrial corridor, was allowed to languish.
  It is time we do something about it.
  This legislation we introduce today would finally ameliorate the 
legacy of an opportunity missed long ago.
  The bill would immediately designate 360 miles of Route 17 between 
Erie, PA and Harriman, NY, that meet Federal interstate construction 
standards as Interstate 86, creating connections to I-90, I-390, I-81, 
I-84, and I-87. The remaining 30 miles of Route 17 would be designated 
as a future part of the interstate system and will become I-86 as soon 
as the State Department of Transportation upgrades them. I am confident 
the NYDOT, working together with the Federal Highway Administration, 
will soon have the rest of Route 17 up to interstate standards.
  The southern tier region, along with the rest of Upstate New York, 
has suffered enduring economic hardship and job losses, even as the 
national economy has boomed. The bill I propose to redesignate Route 17 
as I-86 would help enhance the visibility of this important region and 
highlight its potential for business development and tourism.
  I would also like to recognize the efforts of Samara Barend, a 
southern tier native, who was so effective in mobilizing support for 
this issue. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this 
most important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 958

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the designation of a portion of State Route 17 in New 
     York and Pennsylvania as an Interstate route would promote 
     the visibility of the region, the potential of the region for 
     business development and tourism, and the economic regrowth 
     of the region; and
       (2) a major portion of State Route 17 is a logical addition 
     to the Interstate System and will provide an east-west 
     interstate highway that benefits a large region of New York 
     and Pennsylvania that has suffered competitively from the 
     lack of such a highway.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF PORTION OF STATE ROUTE 17 IN NEW YORK 
                   AND PENNSYLVANIA AS INTERSTATE ROUTE 86.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b)(2), the portion 
     of State Route 17 located between the junction of State Route 
     17 and Interstate Route 87 in Harriman, New York, and the 
     junction of State Route 17 and Interstate Route 90 near Erie, 
     Pennsylvania, is designated as Interstate Route 86.
       (b) Substandard Features.--
       (1) Upgrading.--Each segment of State Route 17 described in 
     subject (a) that does not substantially meet the Interstate 
     System design standards under section 109(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be upgraded in accordance with plans and 
     schedules developed by the applicable State.
       (2) Designation.--Each segment of State Route 17 that on 
     the date of enactment of this Act is not at least 4 lanes 
     wide, separated by a median, and grade-separated shall--
       (A) be designated as a future part of the Interstate 
     System; and
       (B) become part of Interstate Route 86 at such time as the 
     Secretary of Transportation determines that the segment 
     substantially meets the Interstate System design standards 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Treatment of Route.--
       (1) Mileage limitation.--The mileage of Interstate Route 86 
     designated under subsection (a) shall not be charged against 
     the limitation established by the first sentence of section 
     103(e)(1) of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Federal financing responsibility--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     designation of Interstate Route 86 under subsection (a) shall 
     not create increased Federal financial responsibility with 
     respect to the designated Route.
       (B) Use of certain funds.--A State may use funds available 
     to the State under paragraphs (1) and (5)(B) of section 
     104(b) of title 23, United States Code, to eliminate 
     substandard features, and to resurface, restore, 
     rehabilitate, or reconstruct, any portion of the designated 
     Route.

       By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 959. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm to, or the possession if 
a firearm by, any person who is introxicated; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                   THE NO GUNS FOR DRUNKS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
prohibit firearm sales to, and possession by, individuals who are 
obviously intoxicated.
  Mr. President, a casual observer might think that this legislation is 
not necessary. Most Americans probably think that it is already illegal 
to sell a gun to a visibly intoxicated person. At the very least, the 
average citizen likely believes that it is only common sense that a gun 
dealer would never sell a gun to a drunk customer. Unfortunately, 
neither assumption is correct. Some gun dealers do sell guns and 
ammunition to visibly intoxicated persons. My bill will deter these 
sales, and punishes those who persist in making such dangerous sales.
  Federal and state laws currently prohibit the sale of alcohol to 
obviously drunk individuals, to protect both the intoxicated individual 
and others. Likewise, it is against the law for intoxicated persons to 
operate a motor vehicle. Unbelievably, it is not against Federal law to 
sell a firearm to a visibly intoxicated individual, or for an 
intoxicated person to possess a firearm.
  Worse still, Mr. President, some firearms dealers simply ignore 
common sense and sell guns and ammunition to any customers if they are 
clearly intoxicated. The absence of a legal prohibition on such sales 
allows these gun dealers to escape liability for the absolutely tragic, 
and foreseeable, consequences of such outrageous conduct.
  For instance, Deborah Kitchen, a mother of five children, is now a 
quadriplegic after being shot by her ex-boyfriend with a rifle he had 
purchased from a Florida K mart. This man was so drunk when he 
purchased the rifle that the store clerk had to fill out the Federal 
firearm purchase form on his behalf. By his own admission, the ex-
boyfriend had consumed a fifth of whisky and a case of beer the day he 
shot Ms. Kitchen. Nevertheless, the store sold him a .22 caliber bolt 
action rifle and a box of bullets. He then used these to paralyze Ms. 
Kitchen from the neck down.
  Ms. Kitchen sued the K mart for it's outrageous conduct. A jury found 
the store liable of common law negligence, and returned a verdict in 
the amount of $12 million. A Florida appeals court overturned the 
jury's verdict, citing the lack of statutory prohibition on the sale of 
firearms to intoxicated persons.
  Or, Mr. President, consider the case of Anthony Buczkowski, who 
suffered severe injury after being shot by a drunken ammunition 
purchaser. William McKay stumbled into a Michigan K mart store after a 
day-long drinking spree. Although obviously drunk and an admitted 
``mess'', he was still sold a box of shotgun shells. He later used this 
ammunition to shoot Mr. Buczkowski. Although the trial court entered a 
judgment against K mart for the damages suffered by Mr. Buczkowski, the 
Michigan Supreme Court reversed, citing a lack of legal prohibition for 
such sales.
  Unfortunately, common sense and a sense of civic obligation have not 
been sufficient enough to deter these sales. Perhaps the threat of 
criminal and civil liability will do the job. Mr. President, it is my 
fervent hope that this legislation, if enacted, will end any future 
sales of guns and ammunition to intoxicated persons.
  Mr. President, I do not claim that most licensed gun dealers do or 
would sell guns or ammunition to intoxicated individuals. But the fact 
is that these sales do occur--and when they happen, the consequences 
can be devastating.
  Mr. President, our country now understands that alcohol and 
automobiles are a deadly mix. Common sense, and heartbreaking 
experience, tells us that alcohol and guns also do not mix. It is time 
that our laws reflect this common sense notion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent 
that a

[[Page S6364]]

copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 959

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

     SECTION 1. FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO INTOXICATED 
                   PERSONS.

       Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) is intoxicated from the use of alcohol or a 
     controlled substance (as that term is defined in section 102 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).''; and
       (2) in subsection (s)(3)(B)--
       (A) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (vii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(viii) is not intoxicated from the use of alcohol or a 
     controlled substance (as that term is defined in section 102 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 960. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to direct that a portion of any civil 
penalty assessed by used to assist local communities; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


                 THE DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES SUPPORT ACT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help communities that suffer when nuclear power plants operate in an 
unsafe manner.
  As most of my colleagues know, when the NRC discovers safety 
violations at a nuclear power plant, it is authorized to fine that 
facility for its transgressions, and these fines have been as high as 
$1.25 million. Under current law these fines go directly into the 
federal treasury, with no allowances being made for the communities 
that are home to these deficient nuclear power plants. When a nuclear 
facility is poorly operated, it often creates severe safety, 
environmental, and economic concerns for surrounding communities. 
Therefore, it is only fair that those communities should receive a 
portion of any NRC fines to go toward addressing matters of local 
concern. That is why I have introduced the Distressed Communities 
Support Act.
  This legislation is simple and straightforward--it would allow 50 
percent of the fines levied by the NRC against nuclear facilities to be 
funneled back to communities adversely affected by the plant's 
mismanagement.
  The Distressed Communities Support Act would be extremely helpful to 
towns adjacent to nuclear plants which may be trying to develop special 
health, safety, and environmental programs. More important, this bill 
would help communities where the safety violations of the nuclear plant 
require that the plant be permanently shut down and decommissioned.
  It is a fact that nuclear plants around the country are aging, making 
it increasingly difficult for many of them to meet safety standards and 
remain operational. Therefore, it is important that communities 
throughout the country have increased access to resources to deal with 
problems caused by negligent nuclear plants. In my home state of 
Connecticut, the time to help local communities is now.
  The Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam, Connecticut is in the 
beginning stages of decommissioning. In light of numerous safety 
violations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the plant closed 
until these safety concerns were addressed. Then, in December of 1996, 
the owners of Connecticut Yankee decided to permanently close the 
facility. This decision came despite the fact that the license for the 
facility was set to expire in 2007. While the owners of Connecticut 
Yankee had chosen to permanently close the plant, the NRC continued its 
review of the safety violations, and fined Connecticut Yankee $650,000.
  This early decommissioning of this plant will have a dramatic impact 
on Haddam and other surrounding towns. Connecticut Yankee was the 
area's largest employer and represented almost half of the tax base in 
the town of Haddam--a town of just under 7,500 residents. It employed 
more than 300 individuals. The sudden loss of tax revenue and jobs will 
have a devastating impact on this area, and the town may well be forced 
to raise local taxes and make cuts in town services, including the 
public schools.
  In addition to the economic impact is the serious health and 
environmental impact of the way in which this facility was run. The 
people of Haddam and surrounding towns are facing difficult days as 
they contend with radioactive waste and related problems.
  While local officials and residents are looking at innovative ways to 
rebuild their town's tax base, Haddam needs and clearly deserves 
financial assistance to get on the road to economic recovery. As we 
look for ways to provide financial assistance for this community, it 
only seems logical that some portion of the $650,000 in fines should go 
toward helping these people.
  It is even more fitting that a town like Haddam should receive some 
federal assistance, because the federal government is partly 
responsible for this town's problems. NRC Commissioner Shirley Jackson 
has stated that the NRC failed to adequately regulate this plant to 
ensure safety, and stricter monitoring could have prevented a number of 
the problems that this plant has experienced. A recent GAO report 
released by Senator Lieberman details the failings of the NRC in 
overseeing CT Yankee and other plants.
  In most every case where a nuclear power plant's negligence prompts a 
fine by the NRC, the communities surrounding the plant will feel some 
negative repercussions. Therefore, I believe that a portion of these 
fines should be available to the affected communities.
  While the Distressed Communities Support Act will not solve all of 
the problems of towns like Haddam, Connecticut, it is a fair and simple 
initiative that will provide relief to thousands of Americans.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 960

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF PORTION OF CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSED BY THE 
                   NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO ASSIST LOCAL 
                   COMMUNITIES.

       Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2282) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``d. Use of Portion of Civil Penalty To Assist Local 
     Communities.--In imposing a civil penalty on a person, the 
     Commission may direct the person to pay 50 percent of the 
     amount of the civil penalty to local communities to protect 
     local communities from the adverse economic and other affects 
     of a violation of this Act or of decommissioning of a 
     facility under this Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 962. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with respect 
to certain gaming practices on tribal lands held in trust by the 
Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.


                 the gambling clarification act of 1997

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reform 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There is, as I speak, a tribe that is 
attempting to move into the State of Missouri to build a large gambling 
casino. I do not believe the tribe is entitled to build this casino 
under the Indian gaming law, but while Secretary Babbitt has indicated 
he would consider our views in making his decision, he may rule in 
favor of the tribe and those who favor gambling. The only way to 
reverse his decision would be for Congress to change the law and I plan 
to start that process now.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act became law in 1988 to address the rapid growth of gambling on 
Indian tribal lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of 
Indian tribes and upheld their right to conduct gambling on their 
tribal lands, holding that such a right could only be abrogated by an 
act of Congress. Recognizing that it is the policy of the majority of 
the States to prohibit or drastically regulate gambling and recognizing 
that many of the citizens of these States regard gambling as morally 
repugnant, Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act.

[[Page S6365]]

  The intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is to balance tribal 
sovereignty with a State's interest in regulating and controlling 
gambling. The bill attempted to accomplish this by bringing parties to 
a mutual table to work out an agreement for regulating gambling on 
reservations consistent with State policy. But the spirit of the 
legislation is one of containment, to limit gambling and control its 
growth. IGRA pursues the objective by narrowly restricting the 
circumstances by which gaming can be conducted on land acquired by 
tribes after the date of passage of the statute, October 17, 1988. 
However, like many pieces of regulation, unforeseen circumstances 
arise, loopholes open and language proves to be too vague or obtusely 
drafted. Such is the case with IGRA. My legislation does not attempt to 
reopen or rewrite the bill, but it does attempt to address some of the 
legislative voids that affect my State and others.
  A first step for a tribe to conduct gaming on Indian land is to 
petition the Secretary of the Interior to have land taken into trust, 
this permits the tribe to benefit from the tax advantages afforded 
Indian tribes. While such trust petitions are under review by the 
Secretary, he is instructed to review the petition considering the best 
interests of both the tribe and the surrounding community. Furthermore, 
while such a petition is under review, elected officials have an 
opportunity to confront the Secretary with any concerns regarding 
gambling on that land or any objections that community members may hold 
regarding gambling. The statute, however, does not require the tribe to 
declare to the Secretary that land will be used for gambling. 
Furthermore, there is nothing in the statute that would prohibit a 
tribe from representing to the local community and the Secretary that 
land will be used for an unobjectionable purpose, only to begin using 
the land for gambling after it has been placed in trust.
  My legislation will require a tribe that is planning to begin 
conducting gambling on newly acquired tribal land to inform the 
Secretary during the trust application process that the land in 
question will in fact be used for gambling. Tribes with land held in 
trust that have not made such a declaration to the Secretary will be 
prohibited from using that land for gambling until such time as the 
tribe applies with the Secretary to have that land held in trust for 
the specific purpose of gambling. I believe this language will 
encourage the tribes to be open and upfront regarding their gambling 
plans for the trust land and is in the best interests of communities to 
be affected by gambling and in the best interests of the tribal-
community relations. Communities that have serious concerns with the 
introduction of gambling to their neighborhoods will be given 
the opportunity to register their concerns with their elected officials 
and with the Secretary of the Interior. Tribes will also be disinclined 
to misrepresent their intentions or engage in any deceptive tactics to 
acquire land to begin or expand their gambling operations, which will 
go a long way to abating any suspicion between the tribes and the 
surrounding communities.

  This language also clarifies the language regarding tribes in the 
State of Oklahoma, a State where there is no tribal reservations, 
attempting to spread their gaming operations into a neighboring State. 
I believe such a practice was not foreseen by the original statute and 
is inconsistent with the spirit of that statute. Specifically, my 
legislation will permit an Oklahoma tribe to expand their gaming 
operations into a neighboring state, but only when the tribe is located 
in that State and the gaming will be conducted within the boundaries of 
a former reservation. My State is confronted with a situation where a 
tribe has purchased land reaching across the State border into Missouri 
and the tribe is attempting to use that recently purchased land to 
claim residency in Missouri for the purpose of the statute. To me, that 
is exploiting the loose drafting of a statutory language. I do not 
believe the tribe is located in Missouri as contemplated by the statute 
and, therefore, is not entitled to bring a casino into this Missouri 
community over the overwhelming objections of Missourians. My bill will 
make this section clear.
  Finally, the Indian Gaming statute authorizes tribes to conduct 
gaming on their reservations and other trust lands to the extent that 
gaming is permitted in that State. Such language is consistent with 
other Federal law by which tribes are subject to the criminal laws of 
the State but they are not subject to the regulations of the State. The 
Missouri constitution prohibits land-based gaming, gaming of this class 
may only be conducted on floating facilities on the Missouri River or 
Mississippi River. This prohibition was a popular referendum passed by 
the people of the State and the State legislature endorsed the 
objection to land-based gaming in a resolution. My legislation clearly 
states the Missouri Constitution contains a prohibition on land-based 
casinos and may not be interpreted in any way to permit class III land-
based gaming. I might add that where a State has spoken so clearly--and 
the State constitution is certainly a clear statement of intent--I find 
it absurd that outsiders can just come in and do what the local people 
have said they oppose.
  Mr. President, my proposals are not an exhaustive list, but the 
statute has caused a situation in my State that this legislation will 
address. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs will be pursuing a larger package of amendments to address the 
problems in the gaming laws. I encourage him to do so, I look forward 
to working with him and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this 
effort. I want to conclude by reiterating that Federal Indian gambling 
legislation is intended to control and contain Indian gambling. 
Unfortunately the legislation is riddled with loopholes that out-of-
State gambling interests can exploit through tribes like the Eastern 
Shawnee to operate gambling parlors. The people of southwest Missouri 
do not want any kind of casino gambling and I am going to do everything 
I can do legislatively and through the regulatory process to stop it.
  I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the bill and a brief 
question and answer in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 962

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gaming Clarification Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. LAND BASED GAMING PROHIBITION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
                   THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

       Section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2719(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Section 39(e) of article III of the Constitution of 
     the State of Missouri, which authorizes the legislature of 
     the State to permit games of chance only upon the Missouri 
     River or the Mississippi River, conducted on excursion 
     gambling boats and floating facilities--
       ``(A) is a prohibitory measure; and
       ``(B) may not be construed to permit land-based class III 
     gaming of any kind for any purpose.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2719(b)), as amended by section 2, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, subsection (a) shall apply to any lands acquired 
     by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe 
     after the date specified in that subsection, if, at the time 
     of the taking of those lands into trust, those lands are 
     located outside of the State in which the Indian tribe is 
     located.''.

     SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF INTENT TO CONDUCT GAMING.

       Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     4719) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Declaration of Intent to Conduct Gaming.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any 
     other provision of this Act, lands taken into trust for an 
     Indian tribe after the date of enactment of the Gaming 
     Clarification Act of 1997, shall not, for the purposes of 
     this Act, be considered to be Indian lands upon which class 
     II or class III gaming may be conducted in accordance with 
     this Act.
       ``(2) Exception.--With respect to trust lands described in 
     paragraph (1) of an Indian tribe, class II or class III 
     gaming may be conducted on those lands in accordance with 
     this Act if--
       ``(A) the Indian tribe submits an application to the 
     Secretary of the Interior that contains an explicit 
     declaration of the intent of the Indian tribe to conduct 
     gaming on those lands; and

[[Page S6366]]

       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with 
     procedures established by the Secretary, including reviewing 
     the applicability of subsection (b)(4), approves the 
     declaration contained in the petition.''.
                                                                    ____


 Questions and Answers About Senator Bond's Indian Gambling Legislation

       Why is this legislation needed?
       The people of Southwest Missouri and their elected 
     representatives have valiantly fought against the Eastern 
     Shawnee tribes proposed casino project in Seneca. In 
     addition, Creative Gaming International, the gambling company 
     that is working with the tribe to establish the casino, has 
     also purchased land near Branson where they intend to open 
     another casino. At this time the tribe's application to have 
     the Seneca land taken into federal trust is pending with the 
     Secretary of the Interior. While Senator Bond has repeatedly 
     asked Interior Secretary Babbitt to deny the tribe's 
     petition, the outcome is uncertain. Loopholes in the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the federal legislation that 
     regulates Indian gambling, need to be closed to prevent 
     tribes from locating in states where local citizens oppose 
     gambling.
       Will this legislation interfere with the legal action that 
     the State has taken?
       Senator Bond did not want to pursue any angle that would 
     interfere with any other efforts taken at the state level to 
     keep the casino out. The Attorney General of Missouri filed 
     suit on August 19, 1996, but filed a motion to dismiss the 
     case on November 18, 1996, which was granted on November 27, 
     1996. The fact that the case has been dropped means Bond's 
     legislation will not interfere with state efforts to stop the 
     casino.
       Is this a fix for Missouri or a change in the gaming 
     statute affecting all tribes?
       Both. As the situation in Missouri illustrates, the federal 
     statute intended to control the growth of this sort of 
     gambling is vague, poorly drafted and full of loopholes. The 
     Eastern Shawnee tribe is depending on this vague statute and 
     its loopholes to move into Missouri and open a casino, 
     activities that are directly contrary to the intent of the 
     statute. By focusing on several of the legal loopholes, I 
     believe we can solve the problem facing the State of Missouri 
     and other states whose citizens object to gambling 
     facilities.
       Can this legislation pass?
       Absolutely. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is 
     proceeding with legislation this session to correct many of 
     the defects with the laws governing Indian gambling. Bond has 
     met with the committee chairman, Sen. Ben Nighthorse 
     Campbell, and he is aware of the situation in Missouri. Sen. 
     Campbell has several concerns with the law that are similar 
     to Missouri's and has pledged his cooperation to correct this 
     problem.
       Congress sometimes moves slowly; does Bond have an 
     alternative plan?
       Through his membership on the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee, Bond is well-situated to add language to the 
     annual Department of Interior Appropriations bill which would 
     prevent the Secretary of the Interior from placing this land 
     into trust.
       Hasn't the Eastern Shawnee tribe tried to assure local 
     citizens that they no longer intend to develop a casino site 
     on the Seneca land?
       Talk is cheap. The tribe has not amended their petition 
     application with the Department of Interior to reflect the 
     fact that they no longer intend to open a casino. Also, 
     Creative Gaming International, the New Jersey company working 
     with the tribe, noted in a press release just last Friday 
     that they were continuing to pursue ``Native American gaming 
     in southwest Missouri.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 963. A bill to establish a transportation credit assistance pilot 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


  the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation act of 1997

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Transportation 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997,--or, TIFIA. The 
purpose of the bill is to bridge the gap between the Nation's 
substantial infrastructure needs and limited Federal funds. I am 
pleased to report that Senators Graham of Florida, Boxer, Hatch, 
Bennett, and Moynihan have joined me in cosponsoring this important 
measure.
  I think we can all agree that there is a clear shortfall of public 
funding to meet the Nation's transportation needs. Our effort to 
balance the Federal budget only makes the challenge of meeting these 
critical needs all the more difficult.
  The goals of our bill are to offer the sponsors of major 
transportation projects a new tool to make the most of limited Federal 
resources, stimulate additional investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure, and encourage greater private sector participation in 
meeting our transportation needs.
  TIFIA establishes a new Federal credit program for surface 
transportation. It will provide $800 million in credit assistance over 
six years to public and private entities, with the purpose of 
leveraging as much as $16 billion in Federal funds for major 
transportation projects. In turn, this Federal investment could help 
leverage total investment in infrastructure from other public and 
private entities of $40 to $50 billion. Eligible forms of credit 
assistance available through our proposal include loans, loan 
guarantees, and lines of credit.


       what kinds of projects would qualify for this assistance?

  National significance. Projects participating in this program must be 
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be ``regionally or 
nationally'' significant. Projects must enhance the national 
transportation system, reduce traffic congestion, and protect the 
environment.

  Large projects. This program is targeted at large projects that are 
difficult, if not impossible, to fund through traditional means such as 
using a State's annual allocation in the Federal highway program. 
Projects participating in the program must cost at least 100 million 
dollars, or 50 percent of a State's most recent annual apportionment of 
federal-aid highway funds, whichever is less.
  Eligibility. The project must be a surface transportation facility 
eligible for federal assistance--i.e., a highway, transit, passenger 
rail, or intermodal facility.
  State and local support. The project must be included in the State 
transportation plan and be in the approved State Transportation 
Improvement Program.
  User charges. Projects must be self-financing through user fees or 
other non-federal revenue sources.


 why is this program needed in addition to state infrastructure banks?

  The new credit assistance program will supplement existing Federal 
programs, such as the State Infrastructure Banks or SIB's. Large 
projects of national importance are simply too big to be financed by 
SIB's. As start-up financial institutions, SIB's are limited in the 
amount of assistance they can provide in the near term. The credit 
assistance available through TIFIA will help fill this gap in the near 
term.


    will the federal government shoulder all of the risk for these 
                               projects?

  No, under TIFIA, the Federal Government will participate in the new 
credit assistance program as a minor investor. Our bill limits Federal 
participation to 33 percent of total project costs.
  I want to emphasize that the new credit assistance program 
established in TIFIA is a limited, six-year pilot program. The ultimate 
objective of the program is to phase out Federal participation in these 
large projects and allow private capital investment to take on this 
function. It is time to try a new approach and see how it works.
  The benefits of private sector involvement in this area are enormous. 
Giving the private sector a larger role will reduce project costs and 
advance construction schedules. It also will attract much needed 
private capital, and more equitably distribute risks between public and 
private sectors.
  Now more than ever, we must preserve the strengths of the 
transportation system we have in place. Yet, we also must anticipate 
the future, addressing new problems with innovative solutions. This new 
credit program is just the sort of creative mechanism we should be 
advancing.
  It is my hope that the new credit assistance program in the bill I 
introduce today will be included as part of the reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. As I have said 
before, the ISTEA reauthorization process must reach out for ideas on 
creative ways, like this one, to finance our infrastructure needs. The 
combination of our nation's transportation infrastructure needs and the 
significant fiscal constraints at all levels of government make this 
effort imperative. This measure has the endorsement of the American 
Road and Transportation Builders Association; PSA, the Bond Market 
Trade Association; the Internationals Union of Operating Engineers; the 
Building and Construction Trades Department; and Project America. I 
urge my colleagues to give this sensible measure their support.

[[Page S6367]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text and description 
of the bill be included in the Record.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation 
     Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) a well-developed system of transportation 
     infrastructure is critical to the economic well-being, 
     health, and welfare of the people of the United States;
       (2) traditional public funding techniques such as grant 
     programs are unable to keep pace with the infrastructure 
     investment needs of the United States because of budgetary 
     constraints at the Federal, State, and local levels of 
     government;
       (3) major transportation infrastructure facilities that 
     address critical national needs, such as intermodal 
     facilities, border crossings, and multistate trade corridors, 
     are of a scale that exceeds the capacity of Federal and State 
     assistance programs in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act;
       (4) new investment capital can be attracted to 
     infrastructure projects that are capable of generating their 
     own revenue streams through user charges or other dedicated 
     funding sources; and
       (5) a Federal credit program for projects of national 
     significance can complement existing funding resources by 
     filling market gaps, thereby leveraging substantial private 
     co-investment.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Eligible project costs.--The term ``eligible project 
     costs'' means amounts substantially all of which are paid by, 
     or for the account of, an obligor in connection with a 
     project, including the cost of--
       (A) development phase activities, including planning, 
     feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental 
     review, permitting, preliminary engineering and design work, 
     and other preconstruction activities;
       (B) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, 
     replacement, and acquisition of real property (including land 
     related to the project and improvements to land), 
     environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, and 
     acquisition of equipment; and
       (C) interest during construction, reasonably required 
     reserve funds, capital issuance expenses, and other carrying 
     costs during construction.
       (2) Federal credit instrument.--The term ``Federal credit 
     instrument'' means a secured loan, loan guarantee, or line of 
     credit authorized to be made available under this Act with 
     respect to a project.
       (3) Lender.--The term ``lender'' means any non-Federal 
     qualified institutional buyer (as defined in section 
     230.144A(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     successor regulation), known as Rule 144A(a) of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission and issued under the 
     Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.)), including--
       (A) a qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 
     4974(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is a 
     qualified institutional buyer; and
       (B) a governmental plan (as defined in section 414(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that is a qualified 
     institutional buyer.
       (4) Line of credit.--The term ``line of credit'' means an 
     agreement entered into by the Secretary with an obligor under 
     section 6 to provide a direct loan at a future date upon the 
     occurrence of certain events.
       (5) Loan guarantee.--The term ``loan guarantee'' means any 
     guarantee or other pledge by the Secretary to pay all or part 
     of the principal of and interest on a loan or other debt 
     obligation issued by an obligor and funded by a lender.
       (6) Local servicer.--The term ``local servicer'' means--
       (A) a State infrastructure bank established under title 23, 
     United States Code; or
       (B) a State or local government or any agency of a State or 
     local government that is responsible for servicing a Federal 
     credit instrument on behalf of the Secretary.
       (7) Obligor.--The term ``obligor'' means a party primarily 
     liable for payment of the principal of or interest on a 
     Federal credit instrument, which party may be a corporation, 
     partnership, joint venture, trust, or governmental entity, 
     agency, or instrumentality.
       (8) Project.--The term ``project'' means any surface 
     transportation facility eligible for Federal assistance under 
     title 23 or chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code.
       (9) Project obligation.--The term ``project obligation'' 
     means any note, bond, debenture, or other debt obligation 
     issued by an obligor in connection with the financing of a 
     project, other than a Federal credit instrument.
       (10) Secured loan.--The term ``secured loan'' means a 
     direct loan or other debt obligation issued by an obligor and 
     funded by the Secretary in connection with the financing of a 
     project under section 5.
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (12) Substantial completion.--The term ``substantial 
     completion'' means the opening of a project to vehicular or 
     passenger traffic.

     SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY AND PROJECT SELECTION.

       (a) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive financial 
     assistance under this Act, a project shall meet the following 
     criteria:
       (1) Inclusion in transportation plans and programs.--The 
     project--
       (A) shall be included in the State transportation plan 
     required under section 135 of title 23, United States Code; 
     and
       (B) at such time as an agreement to make available a 
     Federal credit instrument is entered into under this Act, 
     shall be included in the approved State transportation 
     improvement program required under section 134 of that title.
       (2) Application.--A State, a local servicer identified 
     under section 7(a), or the entity undertaking the project 
     shall submit a project application to the Secretary.
       (3) Eligible project costs.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), to 
     be eligible for assistance under this Act, a project shall 
     have eligible project costs that are reasonably anticipated 
     to equal or exceed the lesser of--
       (i) $100,000,000; or
       (ii) 50 percent of the amount of Federal-aid highway funds 
     apportioned for the most recently-completed fiscal year under 
     title 23, United States Code, to the State in which the 
     project is located.
       (B) Intelligent transportation system projects.--In the 
     case of a project involving the installation of an 
     intelligent transportation system, eligible project costs 
     shall be reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed 
     $30,000,000.
       (4) Dedicated revenue sources.--Project financing shall be 
     repayable in whole or in part by user charges or other 
     dedicated revenue sources.
       (5) Public sponsorship of private entities.--In the case of 
     a project that is undertaken by an entity that is not a State 
     or local government or an agency or instrumentality of a 
     State or local government, the project that the entity is 
     undertaking shall be publicly sponsored as provided in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (b) Selection Among Eligible Projects.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish criteria 
     for selecting among projects that meet the eligibility 
     criteria specified in subsection (a).
       (2) Included criteria.--The selection criteria shall 
     include the following:
       (A) The extent to which the project is nationally or 
     regionally significant, in terms of generating economic 
     benefits, supporting international commerce, or otherwise 
     enhancing the national transportation system. Specific 
     factors determining national significance shall include the 
     extent to which the project--
       (i) is part of the National Highway System and related 
     connectors as specified in section 103(b) of title 23, United 
     States Code;
       (ii) promotes regional, interstate, or international 
     commerce;
       (iii) enables United States manufacturers to deliver their 
     goods to domestic and foreign markets in a more timely, cost-
     effective manner;
       (iv) stimulates new economic activity and job creation;
       (v) reduces traffic congestion, thereby increasing 
     workforce productivity; and
       (vi) protects and enhances the environment, including by 
     enhancing air quality through the reduction of congestion and 
     decreased fuel and oil consumption.
       (B) The creditworthiness of the project, including a 
     determination by the Secretary that any financing for the 
     project has appropriate security features, such as a rate 
     covenant, to ensure repayment. The Secretary shall require 
     each project applicant to provide a preliminary rating 
     opinion letter from a nationally recognized bond rating 
     agency.
       (C) The extent to which assistance under this Act would 
     foster innovative public-private partnerships and attract 
     private debt or equity investment.
       (D) The likelihood that assistance under this Act would 
     enable the project to proceed at an earlier date than the 
     project would otherwise be able to proceed.
       (E) The extent to which the project uses new technologies, 
     including intelligent transportation systems, that enhance 
     the efficiency of the project.
       (F) The amount of budget authority required to fund the 
     Federal credit instrument made available under this Act.
       (c) Federal Requirements.--The following provisions of law 
     shall apply to funds made available under this Act and 
     projects assisted with the funds:
       (1) Section 113 of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.).
       (3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (4) The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
       (5) Section 5333 of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. SECURED LOANS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Agreements.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     Secretary may enter into agreements with 1 or more obligors 
     to make secured loans, the proceeds of which shall be used--
       (A) to finance eligible project costs; or
       (B) to refinance interim construction financing of eligible 
     project costs;
     of any project selected under section 4.
       (2) Limitation on refinancing of interim construction 
     financing.--A loan under

[[Page S6368]]

     paragraph (1) shall not refinance interim construction 
     financing under paragraph (1)(B) later than 1 year after the 
     date of substantial completion of the project.
       (3) Authorization period.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     loan agreement during any of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (b) Terms and Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--A secured loan under this section with 
     respect to a project shall be on such terms and conditions 
     and contain such covenants, representations, warranties, and 
     requirements (including requirements for audits) as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       (2) Maximum amount.--The amount of the secured loan shall 
     not exceed 33 percent of the reasonably anticipated eligible 
     project costs.
       (3) Payment.--The secured loan--
       (A) shall be payable, in whole or in part, from revenues 
     generated by any rate covenant, coverage requirement, or 
     similar security feature supporting the project obligations 
     or from a dedicated revenue stream; and
       (B) may have a lien on revenues described in subparagraph 
     (A) subject to any lien securing project obligations.
       (4) Interest rate.--The interest rate on the secured loan 
     shall be equal to the yield on marketable United States 
     Treasury securities of a similar maturity to the maturity of 
     the secured loan on the date of execution of the loan 
     agreement.
       (5) Maturity date.--The final maturity date of the secured 
     loan shall be not later than 35 years after the date of 
     substantial completion of the project.
       (6) Nonsubordination.--The secured loan shall not be 
     subordinated to the claims of any holder of project 
     obligations in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, or 
     liquidation of the obligor.
       (7) Fees.--The Secretary may establish fees at a level 
     sufficient to cover the costs to the Federal Government of 
     making a secured loan under this section.
       (c) Repayment.--
       (1) Schedule.--The Secretary shall establish a repayment 
     schedule for each secured loan under this section based on 
     the projected cash flow from project revenues and other 
     repayment sources.
       (2) Commencement.--Scheduled loan repayments of principal 
     or interest on a secured loan under this section shall 
     commence not later than 5 years after the date of substantial 
     completion of the project.
       (3) Sources of repayment funds.--The sources of funds for 
     scheduled loan repayments under this section shall include 
     tolls, user fees, or other dedicated revenue sources.
       (4) Deferred payments.--
       (A) Authorization.--If, at any time during the 10 years 
     after the date of substantial completion of the project, the 
     project is unable to generate sufficient revenues to pay 
     scheduled principal and interest on the secured loan, the 
     Secretary may, pursuant to established criteria for the 
     project agreed to by the entity undertaking the project and 
     the Secretary, allow the obligor to add unpaid principal and 
     interest to the outstanding balance of the secured loan.
       (B) Interest.--Any payment deferred under subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       (i) continue to accrue interest in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(4) until fully repaid; and
       (ii) be scheduled to be amortized over the remaining term 
     of the loan beginning not later than 10 years after the date 
     of substantial completion of the project in accordance with 
     paragraph (1).
       (5) Prepayment.--
       (A) Use of excess revenues.--Any excess revenues that 
     remain after satisfying scheduled debt service requirements 
     on the project obligations and secured loan and all deposit 
     requirements under the terms of any trust agreement, bond 
     resolution, or similar agreement securing project obligations 
     may be applied annually to prepay the secured loan without 
     penalty.
       (B) Use of proceeds of refinancing.--The secured loan may 
     be prepaid at any time without penalty from the proceeds of 
     refinancing from non-Federal funding sources.
       (d) Sale of Secured Loans.--As soon as practicable after 
     substantial completion of a project, the Secretary shall sell 
     to another entity or reoffer into the capital markets a 
     secured loan for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the sale or reoffering can be made on favorable terms.
       (e) Loan Guarantees.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may provide a loan guarantee 
     to a lender in lieu of making a secured loan if the Secretary 
     determines that the budgetary cost of the loan guarantee is 
     substantially the same as that of a secured loan.
       (2) Terms.--The terms of a guaranteed loan shall be 
     consistent with the terms set forth in this section for a 
     secured loan, except that the rate on the guaranteed loan and 
     any prepayment features shall be negotiated between the 
     obligor and the lender, with the consent of the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. LINES OF CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into agreements to 
     make available lines of credit to 1 or more obligors in the 
     form of direct loans to be made by the Secretary at future 
     dates on the occurrence of certain events for any project 
     selected under section 4.
       (2) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of a line of credit made 
     available under this section shall be available to pay debt 
     service on project obligations issued to finance eligible 
     project costs, extraordinary repair and replacement costs, 
     operation and maintenance expenses, and costs associated with 
     unexpected Federal or State environmental restrictions.
       (b) Terms and Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--A line of credit under this section with 
     respect to a project shall be on such terms and conditions 
     and contain such covenants, representations, warranties, and 
     requirements (including requirements for audits) as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       (2) Maximum amounts.--
       (A) Total amount.--The total amount of the line of credit 
     shall not exceed 33 percent of the reasonably anticipated 
     eligible project costs.
       (B) One-year draws.--The amount drawn in any 1 year shall 
     not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the line of 
     credit.
       (3) Draws.--Any draw on the line of credit shall represent 
     a direct loan and shall be made only if net revenues from the 
     project (including capitalized interest, any debt service 
     reserve fund, and any other available reserve) are 
     insufficient to pay debt service on project obligations.
       (4) Interest rate.--The interest rate on a direct loan 
     resulting from a draw on the line of credit shall be equal to 
     the yield on 30-year marketable United States Treasury 
     securities as of the date on which the line of credit is 
     obligated.
       (5) Security.--The line of credit--
       (A) shall be made available only in connection with a 
     project obligation secured, in whole or in part, by a rate 
     covenant, coverage requirement, or similar security feature 
     or from a dedicated revenue stream; and
       (B) may have a lien on revenues described in subparagraph 
     (A) subject to any lien securing project obligations.
       (6) Period of availability.--The line of credit shall be 
     available during the period beginning on the date of 
     substantial completion of the project and ending not later 
     than 10 years after that date.
       (7) Rights of third party creditors.--
       (A) Against federal government.--A third party creditor of 
     the obligor shall not have any right against the Federal 
     Government with respect to any draw on the line of credit.
       (B) Assignment.--An obligor may assign the line of credit 
     to 1 or more lenders or to a trustee on the lenders' behalf.
       (8) Nonsubordination.--A direct loan under this section 
     shall not be subordinated to the claims of any holder of 
     project obligations in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, 
     or liquidation of the obligor.
       (9) Fees.--The Secretary may establish fees at a level 
     sufficient to cover the costs to the Federal Government of 
     providing a line of credit under this section.
       (10) Relationship to other credit instruments.--A line of 
     credit under this section shall not be issued for a project 
     with respect to which another Federal credit instrument under 
     this Act is made available.
       (c) Repayment.--
       (1) Schedule.--The Secretary shall establish a repayment 
     schedule for each direct loan under this section based on the 
     projected cash flow from project revenues and other repayment 
     sources.
       (2) Timing.--All scheduled repayments of principal or 
     interest on a direct loan under this section shall commence 
     not later than 5 years after substantial completion of the 
     project and be fully repaid, with interest, by the date that 
     is 20 years after the end of the period of availability 
     specified in subsection (b)(6).
       (3) Sources of repayment funds.--The sources of funds for 
     scheduled loan repayments under this section shall include 
     tolls, user fees, or other dedicated revenue sources.

     SEC. 7. PROJECT SERVICING.

       (a) Requirement.--The State in which a project that 
     receives financial assistance under this Act is located may 
     identify a local servicer to assist the Secretary in 
     servicing the Federal credit instrument made available under 
     this Act.
       (b) Agency; Fees.--If a State identifies a local servicer 
     under subsection (a), the local servicer--
       (1) shall act as the agent for the Secretary; and
       (2) may receive a servicing fee, subject to approval by the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Liability.--A local servicer identified under 
     subsection (a) shall not be liable for the obligations of the 
     obligor to the Secretary or any lender.
       (d) Assistance From Expert Firms.--The Secretary may retain 
     the services of expert firms in the field of municipal and 
     project finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing 
     of Federal credit instruments.

     SEC. 8. OFFICE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE.

       (a) Duties of the Secretary.--Section 301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) develop and coordinate Federal policy on financing 
     transportation infrastructure, including the provision of 
     direct Federal credit assistance and other techniques used to 
     leverage Federal transportation funds.''.
       (b) Office of Infrastructure Finance.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S6369]]

     ``Sec. 113. Office of Infrastructure Finance

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish within the Office of the Secretary an Office of 
     Infrastructure Finance.
       ``(b) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(c) Functions.--The Director shall be responsible for--
       ``(1) carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary 
     described in section 301(9);
       ``(2) carrying out research on financing transportation 
     infrastructure, including educational programs and other 
     initiatives to support Federal, State, and local government 
     efforts; and
       ``(3) providing technical assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies and officials to facilitate the 
     development and use of alternative techniques for financing 
     transportation infrastructure.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
``113. Office of Infrastructure Finance.''.

     SEC. 9. STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS.

       The provision of financial assistance under this Act with 
     respect to a project shall not--
       (1) relieve any recipient of the assistance of any 
     obligation to obtain any required State or local permit or 
     approval with respect to the project;
       (2) limit the right of any unit of State or local 
     government to approve or regulate any rate of return on 
     private equity invested in the project; or
       (3) otherwise supersede any State or local law (including 
     any regulation) applicable to the construction or operation 
     of the project.

     SEC. 10. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary may issue such regulations as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate to carry out this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 11. FUNDING.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There shall be available from the Highway 
     Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out 
     this Act--
       (A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       (B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       (C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (D) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (F) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available until expended.
       (b) Contract Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, approval by the Secretary of a Federal 
     credit instrument that uses funds made available under this 
     Act shall be deemed to be acceptance by the United States of 
     a contractual obligation to fund the Federal credit 
     instrument.
       (c) Limitations on Credit Amounts.--For each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003, principal amounts of Federal credit 
     instruments made available under this Act shall be limited to 
     the amounts specified in the following table:
                                                         Maximum amount
Fiscal year:                                                 of credit:
  1998....................................................$800,000,000 
  1999..................................................$1,200,000,000 
  2000..................................................$2,000,000,000 
  2001..................................................$3,000,000,000 
  2002..................................................$4,000,000,000 
  2003..................................................$5,000,000,000.

     SEC. 12. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     summarizing the financial performance of the projects that 
     are receiving, or have received, assistance under this Act, 
     including a recommendation as to whether the objectives of 
     this Act are best served--
       (1) by continuing the program under the authority of the 
     Secretary;
       (2) by establishing a Government corporation or Government-
     sponsored enterprise to administer the program; or
       (3) by phasing out the program and relying on the capital 
     markets to fund the types of infrastructure investments 
     assisted by this Act without Federal participation.
                                                                    ____


  The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997


                 Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents

       This section identifies a new Federal credit assistance 
     program for surface transportation facilities as the 
     Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 
     1997.


                            Sec. 2. Findings

       This section recites Congressional findings that a 
     comprehensive surface transportation infrastructure system is 
     crucial to the economic health of the Nation. Traditional 
     methods of funding transportation projects, including Federal 
     grants, are insufficient to meet the Nation's infrastructure 
     investment needs. The funding gap is particularly acute for 
     large projects of National significance, due to their scale 
     and complexity. A new Federal credit program for 
     transportation will help address these projects' special 
     needs by supplementing existing Federal programs and 
     leveraging private debt and equity capital.
       This bill is designed to provide an initial infusion of 
     Federal credit assistance over the next six years to 
     facilitate the development of large, capital-intensive 
     infrastructure facilities through public-private 
     partnerships, consisting of a State or local governmental 
     project sponsor and one of more private sector firms involved 
     in the design, construction or operation of the facility. The 
     Federal credit program is oriented to those projects which 
     have the potential to be self-supporting from user charges or 
     other non-Federal dedicated funding sources. The program is 
     structured to fill to specific market gaps through Federal 
     participation as a minority investor. The ultimate objective 
     is to phase out Federal participation and encourage private 
     capital investment to fulfill this function.
       The program should result in additional surface 
     transportation facilities being developed more quickly and at 
     a lower cost than would be the case under conventional public 
     procurement, funding and ownership.


                          Sec. 3. Definitions

       This section sets forth the definitions for terms used in 
     this title. The key terms are listed below:
       A ``Project'' is defined as any surface transportation 
     facility eligible under the provisions of title 23 as well as 
     chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. Permitted 
     projects would include free or tolled highways, bridges and 
     tunnels; mass transportation facilities and vehicles; 
     commuter and inter-city rail passenger facilities and 
     vehicles; intermodal passenger terminals; and intermodal 
     freight and port facilities (excluding privately-owned rail 
     rolling stock).
       The term ``Eligible Project Costs'' is defined to include 
     those costs of a capital nature incurred by a sponsor in 
     connection with developing an infrastructure project. These 
     costs fall into three categories: (I) pre-construction costs 
     relating to planning, design, and securing 
     governmental permits and approvals; (ii) hard costs 
     relating to the design and construction (or 
     rehabilitation) of a project; and (iii) related soft costs 
     associated with the financing of the project, such as 
     interest during construction, reserve accounts, and 
     issuance expenses. It would not include operation or 
     maintenance costs.
       An ``Obligor'' is defined as any entity (whether a State or 
     local governmental unit or agency, a private entity 
     authorized by such governmental unit to develop a project, or 
     a public-private partnership) that is a borrower involving a 
     secured loan, loan guarantee, or line of credit under this 
     title.
       A ``Local Servicer'' is defined as a state infrastructure 
     bank or other designated State or local governmental agency 
     which may service the credit program on behalf of the 
     Department of Transportation within that State.
       ``Substantial Completion'' is defined as the date when a 
     project opens to vehicular, passenger, or freight traffic.
       Other definitions specify types of lenders, project 
     obligations, and Federal credit instruments--including 
     secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit.


       Sec. 4. Determination of Eligibility and Project Selection

       This section defines the threshold eligibility criteria for 
     a project to receive Federal credit assistance and outlines 
     the basis upon which the Secretary will select among 
     potential candidates. The Secretary's determination of a 
     project's eligibility will be based on both quantitative and 
     qualitative factors.
       To ensure that the project enjoys both State and local 
     support the project must be included in the State's plan and 
     program and, if the project is in a metropolitan area, it 
     must satisfy all metropolitan planning requirements of 23 
     U.S.C. 134. The State or State-designated entity will be 
     responsible for forwarding the project application to the 
     Secretary.
       In terms of size, the project must be reasonably 
     anticipated to cost at least $100 million or an amount equal 
     to 50 percent of a State's annual Federal-aid highway 
     apportionments, whichever is less. This two-fold test is 
     designed to allow small and rural States to accommodate 
     projects otherwise too large for their transportation 
     programs. Based on FY 1997 apportionments, eighteen States 
     could qualify projects costing less than $100 million, with 
     the minimum allocation equaling approximately $40 million.
       An exception to this size threshold would be projects 
     involving the installation of intelligent transportation 
     systems, which would need to cost at least $30 million.
       In addition, a project must be supported at least in part 
     by user charges, to encourage the development of new revenue 
     streams and the participation by the private sector.
       Project applicants meeting the threshold eligibility 
     criteria then will be evaluated by the Secretary based on a 
     number of factors. Of prime importance, the project must be 
     deemed by the Secretary to be ``nationally or regionally 
     significant'' in terms of facilitating the movement of people 
     and goods in a more efficient and cost-effective manner, 
     resulting in significant economic benefits. Among the other 
     factors which the Secretary will take into account are: the 
     likelihood that the Federal assistance will enable the 
     project to proceed at an earlier date; the degree to which 
     the project leverages non-Federal resources, including 
     private sector capital; and its overall creditworthiness.
       This section also provides that all requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.), the Uniform Relocation Assistance and

[[Page S6370]]

     Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     4601 et seq.), and section 5333 of title 49 and section 113 
     of title 23, United States Code (relating to wage 
     protections), shall apply to funds made available under this 
     title and projects assisted with such funds.


                         Sec. 5. Secured Loans

       This section establishes a temporary lending program 
     whereby the Secretary may make direct Federal loans in fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 to demonstrate to the capital markets 
     the viability of making transportation infrastructure 
     investments where returns depend on excess project cash 
     flows. It is intended to help the capital markets develop the 
     capability to replace the role of the Federal government by 
     the end of the authorization period in helping finance the 
     costs of large projects of national significance. The loans 
     are contemplated to be made up front as combined construction 
     and permanent financing, although the title allows the 
     Federal loan to be made up to a year after construction is 
     completed for those projects that have arranged interim 
     construction financing.
       A secured loan could be in an amount up to 33 percent of 
     the reasonably anticipated cost of a project, and could have 
     a final maturity as long as 35 years after the date the 
     project opens (substantial completion). The interest rate 
     would be established at the time the loan agreement was 
     executed, and would equal the prevailing yield on comparable 
     term U.S. Treasury bonds. Loan repayments would be required 
     to start within five years after the date of substantial 
     completion and are payable from user fees or dedicated 
     revenue streams.
       The terms and conditions of each loan would be negotiated 
     between the Secretary and the borrower, and would allow a 
     lien on project revenue subject to a lien securing other 
     project debt. In the event of default and bankruptcy, 
     insolvency or liquidation of the obligor, the loan is not 
     subordinated to the claims of any other lender. A key feature 
     would allow the Secretary, for a period up to 10 years 
     following project completion, to defer principal and interest 
     payments should project revenues prove insufficient. Any 
     deferred payments during this ``ramp-up'' period would accrue 
     with interest, and this amount will be amortized over the 
     remaining term of the loan. Such a flexible payment schedule 
     (allowing for deferrals during the project's ramp-up phase) 
     should assist the project in obtaining an ``investment 
     grade'' bond rating (that is, BBB or higher) on its 
     capital markets indebtedness. Excess revenues or proceeds 
     of refinancing from non-Federal funding sources could be 
     used to prepay the secured loans without penalty.
       The Secretary is to determine whether a secured loan can be 
     sold to another entity or reoffered into the capital markets 
     on favorable terms as soon as possible after substantial 
     completion.
       In lien of funding secured loans directly, the Secretary 
     may provide loan guarantees to lenders, provided the 
     budgetary cost based on credit-worthiness is similar. This 
     feature is designed to attract voluntary investment from 
     pension funds and other institutional investors. Guaranteed 
     loans would not be permitted to be issued on a tax-exempt 
     basis.


                        Sec. 6. Lines of Credit

       This section authorizes the Secretary to enter into 
     agreements to make direct loans to projects at future dates 
     upon certain conditions occurring. Such agreement would be in 
     the form of a standby line of credit.
       In contrast to a secured loan provided under section 5, the 
     line of credit would not be for the purpose of funding 
     construction costs as part of the project's initial 
     capitalization. Rather, the line of credit would be drawn 
     upon if needed to pay debt service and other project expenses 
     (such as extraordinary repair and replacement, or operation 
     and maintenance) during the critical ``ramp-up'' period after 
     the facility has opened. The line is designed to facilitate 
     project sponsors' access private capital by assisting them in 
     obtaining investment grade ratings on their debt.
       It is intended that the financial institutions such as bond 
     insurers will develop the capability to replace this 
     temporary role of the Federal government in providing lines 
     of credit for large transportation infrastructure projects by 
     the end of the authorization period.
       The secured loans and the line of credit are intended to 
     address projects with different financial needs based on 
     their pro-forma capital structures. The secured loans will be 
     most attractive to those projects that must demonstrate to 
     private lenders or capital markets debt investors that there 
     is adequate coverage ``going in'' based on maximum annual 
     debt service, and where the cost of the Federal loan compares 
     favorably with the cost of other borrowing alternatives. A 
     line of credit is more likely to be used by projects that are 
     able to issue capital markets debt on favorable terms with an 
     ascending debt service pattern, but need to demonstrate 
     access to contingent sources of capital to support such debt 
     service in the event revenues fail to grow as quickly as 
     annual payments of principal and interest.
       This section sets forth various limitations on the 
     availability of draws on a line of credit. A draw on the line 
     will represent a direct loan. A line of credit could only be 
     drawn upon after the project had used up other available 
     revenues and reserves, and it could only be accessed for a 
     period of up to 10 years after a project had been 
     substantially completed.
       The total amount of draws could not exceed 33 percent of 
     reasonably anticipated eligible project costs, as is the case 
     with secured loans. The borrower could draw down up to 20 
     percent of the line of credit each year (i.e., the entire 
     amount could be drawn down during the first five years of a 
     ten year credit line, if needed.)
       Any draws would need to be fully repaid, with interest, 
     within 20 years of the end of the 10-year availability period 
     following substantial completion of the project. The interest 
     rate for any draw would be established at the time the line 
     of credit agreement was entered into, at a rate equal to the 
     then-prevailing yield on 30 year U.S. Treasury bonds. The 
     repayment of the draw would be secured in a manner similar to 
     the secured loan.
       To avoid ``double-dipping,'' a borrower could not combine a 
     line of credit with a secured loan for any given project.


                       sec. 7. project servicing

       The program will use State or local governmental agencies 
     to assist the Secretary in servicing each credit instrument. 
     The State may designate its State infrastructure bank or some 
     other public agency to serve as the local servicing agent for 
     the credit instrument.
       The local servicing agent would function as a financing 
     conduit, much like a mortgage company, and with the 
     Secretary's approval it could charge a servicing fee. It 
     would not be financially liable in any way for the credit 
     provided; rather, it would assist in the disbursement and 
     collection of funds. It is required that the local servicing 
     agent set up a separate account from its other activities to 
     receive the Federal credit proceeds for disbursal to the 
     borrower, and to receive loan repayments for remittance to 
     the Secretary.


                sec. 8. office of infrastructure finance

       The Secretary will establish an Office of Infrastructure 
     Finance to manage the credit program and provide related 
     technical and educational assistance.
       Program guidelines will be established by the Secretary in 
     order to ensure the program operates prudently and 
     efficiently, including requiring obligors to provide annual 
     audits.


                    sec. 9. state and local permits

       This section states that this title in no way supersedes 
     any existing State or local laws, regulations, or project 
     approval requirements.


                            sec. 10. funding

       This section provides contract authority to fund the 
     budgetary or subsidy costs of the Federal credit instruments 
     provided. (Subsidy costs, which are defined in and required 
     to be funded by budget authority under the Federal Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990, represent the present value of expected 
     cash flows for each credit instrument, taking into account 
     the default risk as well as any interest rate subsidy. Since 
     this title requires all secured loans to be made at rate 
     equal to the comparable term U.S. Treasury rate, there will 
     be no interest subsidy element.) The contract authority 
     would remain available until expended, and would be paid 
     out of the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund.
       The section also establishes a limit each year on the 
     maximum amount of credit assistance that may be offered under 
     this title.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Budget (contract)    Nominal credit 
            Fiscal year                 authority            limit      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998..............................        $40,000,000       $800,000,000
1999..............................        $60,000,000     $1,200,000,000
2000..............................       $100,000,000     $2,000,000,000
2001..............................       $150,000,000     $3,000,000,000
2002..............................       $200,000,000     $4,000,000,000
2003..............................       $250,000,000     $5,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Sec. 110. Report to Congress

       This section requires the Secretary to summarize the 
     activities and results of the assistance programs and 
     mechanisms provided under this title, including whether they 
     are succeeding in encourage the private capital markets to 
     invest in large transportation infrastructure projects. The 
     report shall be made within four years of enactment of the 
     title and include recommendations on whether the programs 
     should be continued or phased out by the end of the 
     authorization period as planned.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, who is the chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I am pleased 
to serve,

[[Page S6371]]

a question about his proposed Transportation Finance and Innovation 
Act.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will be pleased to yield to a question from my 
California colleague.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I also want to thank the Chairman 
for his support for a number of critical transportation projects in 
California and in particular, the Alameda Transportation Corridor 
project. As the Chairman knows, he supported my efforts to designate 
the Corridor a High Priority Corridor in the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995. That in turn led President Clinton to include 
in his fiscal year 1997 budget request funding to support a $400 
million direct Federal loan for the project, which was approved by 
Congress last year.
  As Senator Chafee, knows, California has major need for 
transportation investment due in large part to the tremendous increase 
in international trade flowing through the state. While this trade has 
helped bring California out of the economic recession earlier this 
decade, it has also placed tremendous strain on our infrastructure. No 
where is this more apparent than at our border with Mexico. 
Unfortunately, after the implementation of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, the Federal Government provided no special assistance 
to the border States to deal with the expected doubling of commercial 
truck traffic through these border trade corridors. As the Senator 
knows from his recent tour of the area, narrow rural highways or city 
streets are being expected to carry heavy, continuous commercial truck 
traffic.
  In response to this need, I introduced the Border Infrastructure, 
Safety and Congestion Relief Act. A section of my bill would provide 
Federal funds to state infrastructure banks or authorities to finance 
border improvement projects. We know that some projects could be 
financed more efficiently under partnerships with the private sector. I 
understand Senator Chafee's bill on Transportation Finance and 
Innovation would provide an infusion of Federal credit assistance over 
the next six years to help construct large, high-cost infrastructure 
facilities. My question for the Chairman is this, would border crossing 
facilities and trade corridors be eligible for this type of Federal 
financing under your bill?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct. Through the efforts of Senator 
Boxer, I have become aware of the need for border infrastructure 
investment and of her own legislation which has been referred to our 
committee. The Transportation Finance and Innovation Act embraces the 
innovative finance objectives of the Boxer bill. Border crossing 
facilities and multi-State trade corridors are clearly eligible and the 
selection criteria specifically includes those projects which promote 
international commerce. This bill will enable United States 
manufacturers to deliver their goods to domestic and foreign markets in 
a more timely, and cost-effective manner.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chairman. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the Transportation Finance and Innovation Act. Several 
projects in California could benefit potentially from this legislation, 
not only in the border region but with the Alameda Corridor project in 
Los Angeles and the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension to San Francisco 
International Airport. I appreciate Senator Chafee's hard work and 
vision to present new innovations and ideas on financing transportation 
investments needed to keep our economy competitive in the world.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Rhode Island--the distinguished chairman of the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee--in the introduction of an initiative to help 
address our nation's infrastructure needs. Our initiative aims to 
harness the resources and energies of the public and the private 
sectors, and have them work in concert to ensure that a 21st century 
America has a modern system of roads, highways, and other critical 
public works assets. We are calling this new partnership the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997--
TIFIA.
  Mr. President, the numbers paint a stark and disturbing picture of 
the state of our nation's infrastructure. A survey of our nation's 
community water system estimated that a minimum of $138.4 billion are 
needed over a 20 year period for the purposes of installing, upgrading, 
or replacing water mains, pipes, and processing facilities. Houston 
Mayor Bob Lanier, Chairman of the Rebuild America Coalition, reports 
that ``57 percent of highway pavement in all but a handful of states is 
in poor or mediocre condition; in some of the most populous regions, 
the figure is as high as 70%.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation 
estimates that our nation must invest an additional $33 billion in 
surface transportation in order to stay ahead of future growth, 
congestion, and development. We are also faced with 187,000 
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. According to 
the Federal Highway Administration, a minimum of $8.2 billion is 
required to improve and correct bridge conditions.
  In addition to these needs, we are faced with the important and 
challenging task of balancing the federal budget in order to preserve 
the health and prosperity of future generations of Americans. In order 
to achieve this goal and still meet our nation's infrastructure needs, 
our actions must be a combination of traditional as well as new and 
innovative means of financing.
  Specifically, I believe that we need to do the following: First, we 
need to provide for a more efficient use of resources going to improve 
and develop our nation's infrastructure. We need to better utilize 
cost-saving tools and techniques so that we can stretch our nation's 
public investment dollars as far as possible in this time of limited 
federal funds. Second, we need to raise the level of traditional 
resources so that states will have a larger pool of dollars, including 
federal dollars, available for infrastructure development. Third, we 
need to attract and facilitate new and innovative financing sources, 
such as private investment. By fostering greater private-public 
partnerships, we can provide additional funding resources for states 
and communities. Finally, we need to develop and support innovative 
construction and financing mechanisms, such as State Infrastructure 
Banks (SIBs) and the legislation we are introducing today, TIFIA.
  In the face of declining federal investment in infrastructure amidst 
tight fiscal constraints, TIFIA enables communities and states to 
utilize creative methods for addressing our nation's infrastructure 
needs. TIFIA would provide $800 million in federal credit assistance 
for major transportation infrastructure projects costing in excess of 
$100 million. The legislation provides a model in which states could 
use federal loans to develop large projects that have the potential to 
be self-supporting.
  Projects which would be candidates for receiving assistance under 
this program include: The Western Extension of the George Bush Freeway 
in Texas; the Broken Arrow Expressway in Oklahoma; the widening of US 
Highway 219 in New York; the Interstate 15 rebuilding project in Utah; 
the Border Infrastructure project in Southern California; and the 
Florida High Speed Rail.
  In my state of Florida, the state's Department of Transportation is 
proposing the Florida High Speed Rail project, which would connect the 
major metropolitan areas of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, and be the first 
true high speed rail line in our nation. Japan and nations in Europe 
have already made major progress in high speed rail transportation--but 
this progress has been contingent on support from their national 
governments. TIFIA could provide important credit support for such 
projects of national significance.
  Creative financing for infrastructure development is crucial as we 
enter the 21st century and are confronted with the extensive needs 
which can only be addressed through new and visionary approaches. In 
this Congress, we are scheduled to reauthorize both the Clean Water Act 
and ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which 
governs our nation's highway system--two major infrastructure bills 
which address pressing needs that affect the daily lives of citizens 
nationwide.
  As we focus on these two major bills, it is my hope that we will take 
steps to improve the state of our nation's public works system in a 
substantial and effective manner. TIFIA should be used as one model for 
taking these steps using a creative private-public financing approach. 
In fact, it is my hope

[[Page S6372]]

that this legislation will be incorporated into ISTEA.
  We should create new partnerships which will help us to meet current 
and future needs while acknowledging the limited resources available to 
us in this fiscal environment. If we are to rebuild our nation's 
infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for the next generation of 
transportation infrastructure, we will need to develop innovative 
financing programs such as TIFIA.
  It is my hope that after we complete the Highway Program bill--with 
the inclusion of TIFIA as an innovative financing title--we will 
develop similar mechanisms for addressing the financing requirements of 
other major public works needs such as clean water systems and perhaps 
even school construction.
  We should heed the wisdom found in the words of Daniel Burnham, a 
prominent architect who served as chairman of a commission charged with 
redeveloping the District of Columbia, ``Think no small ideas. Small 
ideas have no magic to stir men's minds.'' Let us use this bill as the 
starting point from which to make a serious and substantial dent in our 
national development needs.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his leadership in this area 
and look forward to working closely with him as we work to pass this 
bill and reauthorize the Highway Program.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 364

  At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Abraham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 364, a bill to 
provide legal standards and procedures for suppliers of raw materials 
and component parts for medical devices.


                                 S. 387

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Graham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 387, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equity to exports of software.


                                 S. 492

  At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Nevada 
[Mr. Bryan] was added as a cosponsor of S. 492, a bill to amend certain 
provisions of title 5, United States Code, in order to ensure equality 
between Federal firefighters and other employees in the civil service 
and other public sector firefighters, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 496

  At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] was added as a cosponsor of S. 496, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against income tax to 
individuals who rehabilitate historic homes or who are the first 
purchasers of rehabilitated historic homes for use as a principal 
residence.


                                 S. 507

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Leahy] was added as a cosponsor of S. 507, a bill to establish the 
United States Patent and Trademark Organization as a Government 
corporation, to amend the provisions of title 35, United States Code, 
relating to procedures for patent applications, commercial use of 
patents, reexamination reform, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 551

  At the request of Mr. Gregg, the names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
DeWine] and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] were added as 
cosponsors of S. 551, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 to make modifications to certain provisions.


                                 S. 682

  At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Nevada 
[Mr. Reid] was added as a cosponsor of S. 682, a bill to amend title 
32, United States Code, to make available not less than $200,000,000 
each fiscal year for funding of activities under National Guard drug 
interdiction and counterdrug activities plans.


                                 S. 755

  At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Allard] was added as a cosponsor of S. 755, a bill to amend title 
10, United States Code, to restore the provisions of chapter 76 of that 
title (relating to missing persons] as in effect before the amendments 
made by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 and 
to make other improvements to that chapter.


                                 S. 872

  At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] was added as a cosponsor of S. 872, a bill to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the nonrecognition of 
gain for sale of stock to certain farmers' cooperatives, and for other 
purposes.


                       Senate Joint Resolution 6

  At the request of Mr. Kyl, the names of the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], and the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Joint Resolution 6, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims.


                          Senate Resolution 94

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], and the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Resolution 94, a resolution commending the American Medical Association 
on its 150th anniversary, its 150 years of caring for the United 
States, and its continuing effort to uphold the principles upon which 
Nathan Davis, M.D. and his colleagues founded the American Medical 
Association to ``promote the science and art of medicine and the 
betterment of public health.''


                           Amendment No. 469

  At the request of Mr. Specter the names of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], the 
Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Campbell] were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 469 proposed to S. 
947, an original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
104(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.


                           Amendment No. 471

  At the request of Mr. Specter the name of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. D'Amato] was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 471 proposed to 
S. 947, an original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
section 104(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 1998.


                           Amendment No. 492

  At the request of Mr. Kennedy the name of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin] was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 492 proposed to S. 
947, an original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
104(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.


                           Amendment No. 498

  At the request of Mr. Harkin the names of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Grassley], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] 
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 498 proposed to S. 947, an 
original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104(a) 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.
  At the request of Mr. Domenici his name, and the name of the Senator 
from Missouri [Mr. Bond] were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 498 
proposed to S. 947, supra.

                          ____________________