[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10522-S10536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 188, S. 
1173, the so-called ISTEA legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion. Is there 
debate?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, was that a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. LOTT. No. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, it is a 
motion. But it is debatable. I understood the Senator from New Jersey 
intended to debate the motion.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire of the Senator from New Jersey how long he 
thinks that he would need to do that?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can speak for myself, I think, about the bill that 
I want to explain but I can't certainly speak for any other colleagues.
  Mr. LOTT. I am not asking for a specific hour, just some general--an 
hour or two.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is not my intention to tie the Senate up with this 
for some indefinite period--not at all--but I do want to discuss some 
of the problems that I see with the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator think an hour is about what he is thinking 
about?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. LOTT. I am not asking for an agreement--just for the information 
of all Senators so we know when there might be some further action--
just some general idea of the time expected.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In fairness to the majority leader, who I have found 
to be an understanding person, I would take the time necessary; 
probably--I do not know--an hour or so.
  Mr. LOTT. That would be fine. Will the Senator require a rollcall 
vote?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if we can achieve order in the 
Chamber, it would be easier for us to communicate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate come to order?
  The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Senate is 
not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Kentucky is 
correct. The Senate is not in order.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, once again, I thank you.
  Mr. President, we are about to consider a radical departure from the 
structure as we have known it to take care of our highway and 
transportation needs for the next 6 years. But I view this approach as 
somewhat premature and want to discuss what some of the problems are 
with it. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 
also, Mr. President, as having been the chairman of the Senate 
Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations, and currently the 
ranking member, I view it from a particular vantage point.
  So I want to use this opportunity to alert my colleagues to some of 
the problems that I see with the bill and those opportunities perhaps 
to change it. I know, Mr. President, that when I discuss concerns with 
this bill that I also reflect----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order? The 
Senator from New Jersey has the floor and has the right to be heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you and the Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from New Jersey hold for a 
moment? Will those having conversations please take them to the 
Cloakroom so we can hear the Senator from New Jersey?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, once again I thank you. I sense that 
the excitement about the comments that I want to make has just 
overtaken the Senate and it is hard for people to settle down. But if 
they will settle down and listen, their fondest dreams will be 
realized.
  Mr. President, I think we ought to take some time to pause before we 
talk

[[Page S10523]]

about amendments to the bill known as ISTEA to consider what it is that 
we are about to discuss, and amendments we will be offering once we are 
engaged in debate about the bill. But before we start that debate, 
again I want to point out what I think are some of the serious 
discrepancies in its development.
  I am not alone in my concerns about it. As I have indicated, other 
States--I know my friends and colleagues from Illinois have distinct 
concerns about it. I was particularly interested in a discussion that 
we had just a while ago in a conference with some of the Democratic 
Members to learn some of the facts about Illinois roads that I am sure 
the senior Senator from Illinois will want to discuss. Our colleagues 
from Massachusetts have some misgivings about the bill. The Senators 
from Maryland have also indicated the fact that they are not happy with 
what has been offered in this bill. My colleagues across the river in 
the State of New York have indicated to me that they are looking 
seriously at the bill, as other States not exactly in the Northeast 
corner have also indicated--as I mentioned, the State of Illinois. I 
know there are some concerns in the State of California and some 
concerns in the State of Pennsylvania. Again, I will not speak for 
those Senators, but those are the States where the formula change wound 
up dealing with these States in a fairly negative fashion.
  So, Mr. President, as we begin to discuss bringing this bill to the 
floor for discussion, it is time, I think, to begin debating not simply 
the motion to proceed but the substance of the bill.
  This 6-year authorization bill which governs transportation spending 
and planning is going to set the future of every State's transportation 
system into the next century. As we go forward with this debate, we 
better be sure that the serious transportation needs of the American 
people, of their businesses, of their jobs, of their regions, and their 
States are being met by this bill.
  Frankly, there is some good to be said for this legislation. I have 
my doubts that ultimately it achieves the goal that the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
distinguished ranking member are seeking. Those are not the objectives 
that we see being met as we discuss the reauthorization of ISTEA.
  Transportation, as we all know, is not just about roads, rail, and 
bike trails. It is about the economy. It is about jobs. It is about 
moving goods efficiently and effectively. It is about building better 
communities. It is about a quality of life that surrounds our 
transportation networks or, in fact, is developed as a result of 
efficient and competent transportation infrastructure. It is about 
smart investment. It is about protecting our environment and human 
health. It is about quality of life in its fullest expanse. It is about 
making sure that we do what we can to leave a clean environment for 
future generations. It is about being more independent and not simply 
just asking other countries to supply us with oil at whatever price 
they determine the market will bear. We never know when that changes, 
as we saw if we look at history back just a couple of decades.
  So this is far more than simply, again, roads and rails and 
waterways. It is about quality of life. It also, frankly, tells us what 
America is going to be doing in the next century to be more competitive 
in this global marketplace. That is a very serious question for us, 
because as we see the European Union forming to establish its 
economies, we know they are going to be using the latest in technology. 
They have far, far better rail and transit systems than we see 
typically in our country--high-speed rail. We see roads where the 
pavement endures a far greater period of time than do those in our 
country and in our States.
  So we have to think very long and hard about how this Congress is 
going to make its mark on transportation investments and policies for 
the next 6 years. The question is, Does this legislation fully address 
the needs of the national transportation system and provide necessary 
funding and guidance where it is most needed? Do we consider 
transportation issues as if they affect the whole country? Because 
whether they are about roads in New Jersey or roads in Illinois or 
roads throughout the Northeast or North-South, the fact is it has a 
bearing on the way society functions, the way our country's economy 
produces.
  Sometimes those issues get lost, Mr. President, when we see the 
regional differences kind of expand, when we see that now suddenly in 
the closing period when the original version of ISTEA was produced, 
there is a change being attempted in a very short period of time to 
change formula, to change the way we function. I do not care which 
party is in power or which region of the country has more seniority. 
The fact is that we have to work together as a national enterprise 
because otherwise we will pay a price that is not yet seen nor 
understood.
  When we talk about a transportation bill, do we consider such 
critical factors as relieving choke points of congestion, ensuring 
adequate infrastructure in ports and along corridors to necessitate the 
free flow of goods, providing sufficient access to remote areas of the 
country. I know that we hear from Senators whose States are more rural 
than mine or some of the States that I have named in my list, but that 
does not mean that those people ought not have available transportation 
facilities so that they can get their children to school or get to 
the marketplace or get to their jobs. I am honestly concerned about 
that. The Senators from the more rural States know very well that 
Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey has tried to preserve things 
like essential air service so that communities are not suddenly 
isolated and removed and not able to communicate with the rest of the 
world outside their direct boundary.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the bill ensure that the most heavily traveled 
corridors and highways are fully maintained and upgraded to handle not 
only the traffic of today but the expectations for traffic tomorrow? So 
as I said at the beginning of my statement and as we are seeing, I have 
my doubts.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would like to put a question to the Senator from 
New Jersey. The Senator's points are very well taken and particularly 
the point that the Senator makes with regard to the synergies, if you 
will, between different types of transportation modalities and how all 
of them come together in this ISTEA legislation.
  I would like to call to my colleague's attention a picture really 
that I shared earlier this morning concerning the pivotal role as 
almost a hub State that Illinois plays in terms of national 
transportation. Because our State, Illinois, is situated kind of in the 
middle of the country as it is and goes from north to south, as it 
turns out, most of the commodity flows--this is from 1993--as you can 
see, most of the commodity flows go through the State of Illinois. 
Whether from California on the west, Florida on the south, Florida-
Texas, or from the east coast, they come together at the hub in 
Illinois.
  Yet, having said that, it is also a fact that Illinois right now is 
suffering from inadequate attention to the convergence of 
transportation and transit activities in the State. We have seen in my 
State real difficulties with road funding to begin with. I have some 
headlines here: ``Illinois Roads in Shambles,'' and then it goes on 
with report after report regarding the dismal shape of Illinois roads. 
``Illinois Roads Among the Worst in the Nation.'' That is on the road 
part of the equation.
  On the transit part of the equation, it is also news back in my State 
that there have been reductions in service for public transportation, 
moving people from place to place so as to give a breadth, if you will, 
to the economic activity in the State.
  So with both the road aspect of funding as well as the transit 
function, Illinois winds up being a hub State. Actually, in addition to 
being a hub State, Illinois is a donor State. We wind up contributing 
more to the funding of our interstate highway program than many other 
States. We are way down there in terms of dollars sent to Washington 
and dollars received back.
  My question to my colleague would be whether or not the formula with 
respect to highway funding takes into

[[Page S10524]]

adequate account the importance of the hub activities, of the 
convergence of transportation modalities in a State such as Illinois 
and whether or not this legislation addresses the transportation needs 
of the country by failing to adequately do so?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her question 
because it ties exactly into things that I see. The situation is not 
dissimilar, as I am sure the Senator is aware, from my State of New 
Jersey. Much as Chicago and environs in Illinois are just at the 
crossroads where the traffic flows east and west from the rich 
agricultural sectors of our country to the export opportunities at the 
ports on the east coast or the marketplaces on the east coast and to 
the places where habitation is large and the materials have to move 
rapidly in order to get there at an appropriate time for the product to 
be effective in the marketplace, we have the same thing. Our corridor 
is north-south.
  If one travels north-south in New Jersey, it helps originate some of 
the jokes that frankly I don't like about, ``You live in New Jersey. 
What exit?'' People, trying to make jokes--again, I think poor jokes--
think of New Jersey as a large highway with some occasional rest stops 
along the way. But we carry that traffic. We want to play our role in 
the national being, in the national economy.
  We try to make it convenient for the trucks and the traffic to pass 
through expeditiously, but we can't do it unless we have particular 
funding addressed to those issues. Why should New Jersey be the 
recipient of foul air created by that incredible amount of vehicular 
traffic when it is not ours? We do not gouge the travelers at our 
service stations or towns. Our prices are in keeping with the 
marketplace because we want it to be a comfortable place. We don't want 
the trucks and everybody else to wind up in traffic congestion, spewing 
foul air. But we cannot pay for it entirely by ourselves. We are being 
asked to carry a load for the whole sector of the country. The Senator 
is right on the mark, and I hope she will take note of that as she 
evaluates this bill that is being proposed.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for another question? Is it 
not a fact that the original ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Act, referred to the needs of local and interstate commerce, the 
national and civil defense? And, in so doing, makes direct reference to 
the needs of the various States to work together to collaborate in 
behalf of our national interest in commerce, in both local commerce and 
national commerce, as well as our defense needs? And is it not also a 
fact, therefore, that to the extent that this legislation focuses in 
just on miles of road as opposed to these goals of the act, that it not 
only creates a burden for the States so affected, but also creates a 
burden for the country in failing to meet the express goals of the 
original legislation?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We certainly must consider that. If one looks back to 
the origination of the highway system, going back into the 1950's, much 
of that was designed to assure that, if necessary, our defense 
capability was strong, that we could move the traffic, move the 
equipment, move the personnel rapidly through our society. And that 
cannot be ignored. So that all of these things relate to the same 
needs.
  That emphasizes the fact--and once again I am grateful to my 
colleague and friend from Illinois--it emphasizes the fact that this 
has to be considered a national enterprise. And, suddenly, one region's 
gain against another's does little for the country. It may look like a 
new sector is gaining something. They gain nothing if they don't have 
the marketplace, if they don't have the access, if we can't move our 
troops and equipment, Heaven forbid at a critical time, rapidly and 
efficiently. Then we have lost a lot more than the simple gain from an 
adjustment, untimely as this one, frankly, seems to be.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. If the Senator will yield, I suggest the biggest 
threshold challenge that we have to overcome in this debate is a matter 
of one's perspective. If indeed this is seen as pitting one State's 
interest against another State's interest, then one can arrive at a 
formula that rewards the powerful and ``who is on the committee,'' and 
all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with commerce, with our 
national civil defense, with transportation or, indeed, our economy.
  If, on the other hand, our perspective is one of those larger goals 
that were pointed to in the original act, then that would lead to a 
formula in the first instance that would produce a very different 
result, or a different result than the one that we see here.
  So I ask my colleague whether or not it is his impression, since he 
has worked so diligently and closely on this matter over time, whether 
or not the formula itself may be flawed in that it sets up this 
competition among and between the States instead of requiring us to 
focus on what is in the interests of our country, what is in our 
national interests, what is in the interests of transportation as a 
generic label for all the ways we move goods and services and matters 
of interest around, within the United States.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. My answer is that if there was--and there has been--a 
concern about the formulas by which funds were distributed, that a 
review is certainly in order. But the review, in my view, ought to take 
place in an orderly fashion so it can be debated here on the floor, so 
it can be debated in the respective committees. There are several 
committees that have jurisdiction over parts of this. So it takes a 
little bit of time to get this done.
  Now, because we have procrastinated so long in getting this done, it 
seems we have to rush to put in the new bill. Something that affects so 
much of the way we function as a society I think deserves more than a 
rush to judgment. Frankly, my offhand suggestion would be that we 
extend the current bill for a period of time. And I think 6 months 
would be a disaster; probably a year, so that we can consider in a 
thoughtful forum what we ought to be looking at.
  The Senator mentioned something very interesting. Right now there has 
been a change in the manner, the philosophy of the way this body 
operates. Power has moved in a particular direction. But what goes 
around comes around, as is said. Are we going to be looking at changes 
in structure for something as important as our transportation 
infrastructure differently every time there is a power shift? If it's 
Democrats one time and Republicans the next; if it's western one time 
and eastern or southern or central the next, will we therefore at that 
point in time suddenly make changes that take care of our region? Do 
you know what that will produce? Everyone knows what that will produce: 
Chaos. It will produce competition at the worst level.
  I see it now in State after State, where some States are willing to 
modify their environmental requirements, willing to modify their labor 
requirements, to try to steal business from another State. What good 
does it do us in the final analysis? It does us no good because 
eventually the price is paid. I am going to talk about that a little 
bit later.
  My State is a State that has prospered. We benefited from some of the 
ingenuity that went into the development of the industrial revolution. 
Much of it took place in the State of New Jersey. Edison and his 
numerous inventions were largely out of New Jersey. We have a high-
technology business in pharmaceuticals and electronics and computers. 
As the Senator knows, I was in the computer business before I came to 
the Senate. Some days, ruefully, I look back, especially payday. But 
the fact of the matter is that we are a high-technology State and thus 
we have been able to create a pretty good job market.
  The result is that New Jersey is No. 50 among States--last--in 
getting a return on the tax dollars it sends here to Washington. And I 
hear about it from all of my constituents, let me tell you. They don't 
understand why it is we are sending money down here and, where we have 
a slight advantage, which has been in ISTEA, the transportation bill, 
suddenly now it is being taken away. The question is being asked back 
home, whether by a newspaper or in town meetings or just individual 
discussions: Are they after New Jersey again? Do they want to make us 
pay more of our tax dollars into the national interest so States that 
are poverty stricken or don't have the job network or don't have the 
economic infrastructure that we have, they want to take it again from 
New Jersey? My answer, unfortunately, has to be, ``I think so.'' 
Because that is the way it looks, based on what the formulas are.

[[Page S10525]]

  I want to see the day when we stand on the floor of this U.S. Senate 
and we talk about distributions of tax dollars received here in 
Washington. Maybe what we ought to do is put this under an umbrella 
that says everybody gets 100 cents on the dollar. Every State, send 
your money to Washington, you get it back. We will see how the roads 
that cross through some States function; and we will see how welfare, 
and how education assistance, and nutrition for children gets taken 
care of in those States.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. If the Senator will yield for another question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Please.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That seems to me exactly the point. When you base 
a formula on per capita income, what happens then is, No. 1, just at 
the outset you wind up penalizing those States that are contributing 
the most.
  There is an interesting quote out of the Advisory Committee on 
Intergovernmental Relations, which I want to call my colleague's 
attention to, which says, ``Per capita income is not a proxy for State 
wealth.''
  That is exactly what is happening, using that as a proxy for State 
wealth. It is much to the point. It is not just a matter of sharing. 
Because, if anything, I would encourage the Senator from New Jersey and 
my colleagues to think about this as something in which we are called 
upon to share. We are called upon to share resources in our national 
interest to see to it that the transportation needs of our country are 
adequately addressed.
  But what we have here, it seems to me, is a formula that is flawed--
No. 1, in regards to the numbers that go underneath it that are used to 
determine State wealth, on the one hand. It seems to be flawed also in 
not giving adequate consideration to the use and reuse and overuse, in 
some instances, of transportation modalities, whether they are roads or 
highways or transit systems. The fact is, the more people you have the 
more these systems are going to be used. Just like any other physical 
thing, the more that it is used the more it deteriorates.
  So we have a situation in which infrastructure, as a fundamental 
issue, is addressed in this legislation based on a series and a host of 
factors and considerations that may not adequately comprehend that this 
infrastructure is infrastructure that serves all of our needs. It's not 
just New Jersey's roads or Illinois' roads. It's roads through which 
American products will move, roads over which Americans travel, 
transportation that allows for an American economy. All of us have an 
investment and a stake in seeing to it that all of the States that form 
the crux of our economic mix get adequately served by the allocation 
that this formula represents.
  So, my question to my colleague--and this will be my last question to 
my colleague--my question to my colleague is whether or not he believes 
that it will be possible for us to engage with the committee and 
others--I am not a member of the committee but at the same time have 
tried to interact with the committee that made this decision--but 
whether or not, if we were given the additional time to take up these 
questions, in terms of whether the formula presently being used to 
allocate resources actually meets the needs of our country--if given 
additional time we might be able to reshape some of the integral parts 
of that decisionmaking in way that it would more closely serve the 
goals of the Transportation Act?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Once again, I say to my colleague from Illinois, I 
agree fully with the response that was elicited, because of the nature 
of the question. It is our Nation. It is a national goal. It is a 
national objective and we have to keep that in mind.
  I know the Senator from Illinois shares my view that when an 
emergency comes in our country, and whether it be floods or earthquakes 
or tornadoes, our hearts are breaking here. I say, this was across 
party lines, both parties. When we saw the people in North Dakota and 
South Dakota and States like that during the flood, I never voted 
against funding for FEMA, for our Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
or those actions that were taken to get a community restored after a 
natural disaster. It is then and then only, it seems, that we are 
reminded that we are a national unit, that we are a national 
federation, that we are one country.
  Suddenly we will spring into action when it comes to relieving the 
distress that results from a natural disaster; a consequence. We have 
to keep that in mind when we look here at what we are doing on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate today. That is, ensuring that all States in 
all parts of the country are treated with a degree of fairness. I know 
we will hear from other colleagues who say: Well, New Jersey has been a 
donee State, gotten back more than it has sent down in gasoline tax.
  I say yes, that is true. That is true. It was the only place, as I 
mentioned earlier, that we could make up for the deficiency in return 
on our tax dollars that we usually get from the transmissions that we 
make. So this is why I am so intent on making sure that this new piece 
of legislation, this reauthorization, this NEXTEA, or whatever we want 
to call it, reflects the fact that New Jersey is being shortchanged 
here as are these other seven or eight States, drastically 
shortchanged, and that we want to try to restore it if he we can and 
bring sense to the thing. We will have an earnest debate, however long 
that takes, to see that the adjustments are properly made.
  The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, known as ISTEA, 
expired less than 2 weeks ago. ISTEA in its origination was far-
reaching and visionary, and we ought to keep that as a theme for what 
we are doing now. It declared for the first time that the interstate 
system was complete and that transportation policy and planning should 
shift the focus from building eight-lane highways to improving the 
transportation systems in our communities.
  Earlier transportation policies specifically encouraged people to 
abandon existing communities and cities in favor of new development in 
previously untouched green spaces--the suburbs.
  (Mr. THOMAS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the suburbs have become the 
residential location of choice, and traffic patterns have shifted 
accordingly. I have seen it, once again, in my own State, and I have 
seen it in bordering States, where a new highway will be built which is 
designed to serve traffic that exists there and traffic that might 
develop. Within no time--and I say this, again, coming from the most 
densely populated State in the Union--in no time, there are traffic 
jams on those highways, be it Highway 78, Highway 24 or Highway 80. I 
can give you the list of highways that were built which looked like 
they were the highways of the future and, before you know it, they are 
the highways of yesterday, because people took advantage of the 
opportunity to move out of town: ``Let's get out of here.''
  It hasn't spoken very well of our urban policy, I will tell you that, 
because what happened in the grand design that emerged in the early 
fifties by my former commander in chief, also the commander in chief of 
the Senator from Rhode Island, then became President, was a system for 
national highway transportation that had an unfortunate consequence. 
The distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, often talks 
about how it enabled people to leave the problems of the cities behind, 
move out to the suburbs and, as a consequence, we have had the despair 
that has followed in the cities because the revenue bases were taken 
away from them.
  We found out that that is not a particularly good policy for America 
and that we have to make sure we have a balanced transportation 
network, one that permits a city dweller to get to work in another part 
of the city or another city, just as it does to aid the rural resident 
in getting to his or her place of work and the needs that each of the 
families has.
  A 1996 report conducted by the Eno Transportation Foundation entitled 
``Commuting in America II,'' found that today, the dominant commuting 
flow pattern is suburban, with 50 percent of the Nation's commuters 
living in the suburbs and over 41 percent of all jobs located there, up 
from 37 percent in 1980. Suburban areas are now the main destination of 
work trips. The report also found there was a substantial increase in 
reverse commuting, central city to suburbs, commuting rose from 9 
percent share of growth over the decade from 1970 to 1980 to 12 percent 
from 1980 to 1990.

[[Page S10526]]

  However, earlier transportation policies also discouraged land use 
planning, creating new and growing congestion around new and growing 
communities. While our cities died, our metropolitan areas grew too 
quickly and overwhelmed the infrastructure. So there is a paradox here: 
In one way, the cities were falling moribund and, in another way, 
suddenly these metropolitan areas just grew around them and became 
almost the definition of--certainly far more than a metropolis. The 
suburban sprawl drew industry to the suburbs and drained cities of 
income and jobs. This trend continues today and is even expanding.
  The effect of this trend on such critical issues as quality of life, 
safety, the environment and economic development is undeniable. I want 
to read from a study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project. It 
said:

       One of the most far-reaching effects of our transportation 
     spending patterns is the increasingly spread-out pattern of 
     American cities. The results of this new pattern range from 
     the loss of open space--

  We know that happens regularly.

     sprawl consumes a million and a half acres of farmland each 
     year--to more driving and the problems it creates.

  One study found that vehicle miles traveled per household increased 
by 25 to 30 percent when residential density is cut in half. Just think 
about it. Vehicle miles traveled per person increased by 25 to 30 
percent when residential density was cut in half.
  Do you know what that means, Mr. President? Cars, cars, cars, cars, 
cars. And how do you handle them efficiently is a large question. We 
have talked at times about the elimination of Amtrak as a real 
possibility if we don't tend to its capital needs, the elimination of 
our only major inter-city passenger rail service in the country. Look 
at what happens if that disappears.
  If it disappears, the airspace between Boston and Washington would 
require that we put up 10,000 737 flights a year or more. Can you 
imagine? Right now, look at Newark Airport. It is beautifully designed, 
a very progressive airport. Constant delays. Why? Because the airspace 
above the airport cannot accommodate the number of flights we would 
require.
  Look at the highways. It would put hundreds of thousands of cars or 
more per year on the highways between Boston, New York, and Washington. 
Not a terribly good idea.
  ISTEA was designed to try and grapple with these problems in trends 
in a fair, sound, and efficient manner. It sought to employ sounder 
land-use planning by incorporating communities into the process. It 
recognized good transportation policy does not mean simply pouring more 
concrete and asphalt. Instead, it focused on moving goods and people in 
a way that makes the most sense for our Nation, our States, our 
economy, and our communities.
  ISTEA increased planning and flexibility and placed emphasis on local 
decisionmaking, encouraged new technology and made environmental and 
social needs a priority. I saw some of that new technology in place 
yesterday when a coalition of firms appeared in the Capitol and showed 
us what might be by way of new transportation opportunities with the 
use of technology.
  They talked about an experiment near San Diego, CA. A 7.2-mile 
section of road was equipped with magnets. We heard from someone from 
the Department of Federal Highways about a ride that she was taking at 
fairly high speeds, the normal speed for this section of the country on 
these highways. She suddenly realized that her driver was reading USA 
Today looking at the sports section.
  I asked if he got in the back seat and she drove the car. She said, 
no, he was still in the front seat behind the wheel, and here he was 
reading a newspaper as he was traveling along at 60 to 70 miles per 
hour. They employed new technology, and when they equip the cars with 
the appropriate transmission and receiving response from the magnets on 
the highways, they are able to move along with the traffic. You can go 
to sleep if you want to, and if the traffic slows, the vehicle slows.
  It is a wonderful thing, but it needs investment. In order to do 
that, we have to make sure that our transportation planning 
incorporates all of these suggestions, as well as more highways and 
more transportation opportunities are made available.
  I know that in the New York-New Jersey region, there is a new 
technology to pay tolls. It is relatively painless until you get the 
bill, and then you see it has been a daunting experience. But with just 
a little device put on the windshield, you can ride through tolls on 
the George Washington Bridge, and the other bridges and highways around 
the New York area. It is going to be expanded. It shows what can happen 
when there is cooperation among various agencies on a bi-State basis. 
You can improve things without impairing any State's right to grow and 
develop. It is working very well. That is just a small precursor of 
what we might expect in the future if we employ technology properly.
  Those are the kinds of things that we have to think about as we 
invest in our transportation system.
  ISTEA is where this regard for technology really developed. It was 
then called Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems. I was the author of 
much of that part of the bill. I tried something different. I tried to 
develop what we might call intelligent drivers. It was an impossible 
task, Mr. President. So instead, we tried to develop intelligent 
technologies so that the car would take over driving; it didn't have to 
depend on the driver's emotion to keep it cool and keep it straight.
  It worked very well. The advances are just beginning to develop. That 
is so consistent with what our future planning ought to be about that 
we have to make sure that everything is encompassed in this very 
important piece of legislation.
  ISTEA increased planning and flexibility, placed emphasis on local 
decisionmaking, encouraged new technology and made environment and 
social needs a priority.
  ISTEA strongly reaffirmed the Federal commitment in transportation 
planning and investment. While the Nation's existing infrastructure 
continues to decay and we face reduced budgets, economic competition 
demands ever increasing efficiency and growth. Federal policy should 
continue to emphasize these goals while empowering local and regional 
governments to make their own decisions on transportation investment. 
As we approach the close of the 20th century, we need to build upon 
ISTEA's successes to prepare for more intense global economic and 
technological competition.
  Transportation investment has a direct and indirect impact on our 
economy and society. Transportation by itself generates 20 percent of 
the gross domestic product. Each billion dollars invested in 
transportation produces more than 25,000 construction-related jobs. A 
sound, efficient, and innovative transportation system will make a 
major contribution to national efforts to match the productivity of our 
trading partners.
  As we begin to consider the next surface transportation 
reauthorization bill, we need to think more deeply about what it is 
that we really want to achieve. The most important goal is to ensure a 
sound transportation system, one that recognizes that commerce and 
travel does not necessarily stop at a State's border. It recognizes 
that we are a nation of States and not autonomous nation-States. Our 
economy depends on the free and efficient flow of goods. It depends on 
one sector taking advantage of its natural opportunities, be it 
agriculture or lumber or other things, while another State takes care 
of its availability of energy and another takes advantage of its 
ability in telecommunications and electronics.
  That is what makes us the Nation that we are. I have great respect 
for the farming and agricultural population of our country. The 
exchange of opportunity for them is important to me. I cooperate, as I 
said earlier, when they need flood control measures or irrigation 
opportunities. That then ought to beget reciprocation from those parts 
of the country when we look at a State like New Jersey, an industrial 
State.
  The distinguished occupant of the chair is not at liberty to answer, 
but I will pose a rhetorical question. That is, which State has the 
most horses per acre of any State in the country? I will answer because 
I know that the occupant of the chair, being a Senator from Wyoming, 
would love to respond, but I will take advantage of my position

[[Page S10527]]

having the microphone to answer. It is New Jersey. New Jersey has more 
horses per acre than any other State in the country.
  That surprises people because they think of us as having more 
smokestacks than any other part of the country. Well, the fact is that 
New Jersey is a place where people like to live, horses like to live, 
and we raise them. We do not have, I do not think, the bucking bronco 
type that we see in Wyoming, but we have horses fleet of foot and the 
headquarters of the equestrian society in this country.
  So we are interconnected, interrelated. That is what intermodal talks 
about. Simply put, that means the success of our transportation policy 
cannot always be measured by an evaluation of dollar-for-dollar return 
on gas consumption or other criteria that denies real transportation 
problem solutions and trends confronting the entire Nation.
  I would wager--and I have traveled across most of this country, so 
that I have seen small cities in less populated States--one thing I 
have noticed is that they all have something in common, the cities in 
my State and the cities in other States. They have traffic congestion 
at the wrong time--at perhaps the right time, because that is when 
people are commuting from work and from school and from home and 
shopping and all of those things.
  Our policy should not be designed to pit State against State but 
should be designed for effective, efficient, and economically sound 
transportation, while at the same time it encourages rational and 
reasonable planning and new construction to meet anticipated new 
growth.
  As I have said, I fear that for all of its good intention, this bill 
does not succeed in accomplishing this goal. We need one national 
transportation policy to promote a national system. In an era of a 
shrinking budget, the least we should do is prioritize our investments, 
the least that we should do is to ensure that our existing 
transportation system is adequately maintained and preserved before 
there are significant investments in new capacity.
  Unfortunately, the incentive at the State and local level is to build 
new roads, complete with ribbon-cutting ceremonies and all of the 
hoopla that goes along with an occasion like that, but to rather do 
that, it seems, than the less glamorous job of investing in the proper 
maintenance of existing roads. That is a less glamorous pursuit and 
does not get the same kind of interest. But if you are driving along 
and you are bouncing on potholes and you can't get by road construction 
projects, it is quickly understood.
  Since 1991, more than half of the highway money available for repairs 
and to be spent in metropolitan areas has been diverted to State 
departments of transportation to pay for the construction of new 
highways. This, in my judgment, is a bad way to invest. Building a new 
road costs far more per mile than repairing an existing one.
  New roads in metropolitan areas have been estimated to cost as much 
as $1 billion a mile. And I can give a specific example in the New York 
metropolitan area. In contrast, the Federal Highway Administration 
estimates that it costs approximately $1.26 million for 1 mile of 
pavement reconstruction on urban highways.
  Put another way, the way to fix what we have in favor of building new 
capacity also costs money. The FHWA estimated the cost of routine 
maintenance of pavement in good condition at about 8 cents per square 
foot, whereas the cost of rehabilitating failed pavement was closer to 
80 cents per square foot--10 times the amount that it would require if 
it was maintained in good condition.
  There is another thing, and we have been reading a lot about it of 
late, and that is the time that pavement lasts in other countries, 
especially in Europe, is far, far longer than we see in our country. We 
ought to be looking at that problem as we review our highway needs to 
see whether we can get longer use out of existing roads without having, 
again, construction blockades and things of that nature.
  This bill as written abandons ISTEA's programs that place emphasis on 
preservation and maintenance of the existing infrastructure in favor of 
laying new roadbed. In my opinion, we are headed in the wrong 
direction. We must first take care of what we have rather than spend 
billions of dollars on new paving.
  Mr. President, I have not risen to speak in order to deny new 
transportation needs. That is not my mission, because I have had a long 
record of involvement with transportation. I am in the Senate now 15 
years and have been involved with transportation for all of those 
years, because in my State transportation is the lifeblood of our 
existence.
  So I favor spending more money on transportation infrastructure. I 
favor the modality of rail and high-speed trains and aviation and 
highways and waterways. We are now seeing a proliferation in the New 
York area of ferries crossing the Hudson River and the East River to 
get people from State to State without having to wait for long lines 
through tunnels and bridges and congestion, and working very well.
  So all of these things have to be considered. I want us to invest in 
all of them. What I am talking about this very day is to consider that 
these are national obligations and we ought to invest accordingly.
  Any legislation we consider and pass should recognize the fact that 
what we face in critical transportation corridors is crumbling 
infrastructure, roadways that are falling apart and unable to bear the 
load they carry.
  My plea here is for prudence and sound economic policy. What I am 
talking about is ensuring that our tax dollars are used wisely and well 
and that our transportation policies will meet the real needs of both 
today and the next century.
  We underinvest in our transportation infrastructure, Mr. President. 
Our Nation's future standard of living depends on our infrastructure. 
Yet, for many years we have failed to make needed investments, and 
Americans are paying a price for this failure. In metropolitan and 
suburban areas throughout our country traffic congestion has become a 
major problem. Commuters waste hour after hour sitting in traffic. They 
sit in their cars unproductive, tempers running away from them, time 
lost, time away from families, away from spouses, away from children. 
It is a terrible waste of time, and it is eroding the quality of life 
for millions of Americans.
  Our roads are not being maintained. Potholes mar our streets and 
highways. Bridges are deteriorating. Our railroads and transit systems 
are not being maintained sufficiently nor being invested in 
sufficiently to take advantage of new technologies.
  Too many airports are underequipped, and delays are rampant. The sky 
can be used far more efficiently than we are using it. We get tied up 
with weather delays in this country. In other countries, some of them 
have figured out how to land in weather in which it is almost ground 
zero. It is because the technology is available. We do not use those 
techniques in our country. The scope of these problems is enormous, Mr. 
President.
  In 1994, the Federal Highway Administration estimated that 57 percent 
of all roads have been allowed to deteriorate into poor quality, into 
mediocre or fair condition. They also estimated that 30 percent of 
major urban roads suffer from congestion.
  According to the 1995 National Bridge Inventory, there are 186,000 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. That is a 
terrible condition. We have seen the bridge collapses. We have seen 
tieups around bridges. We have seen sudden emergency calls to replace 
the bridges which cannot be done in a hurry. We ought to be taking care 
of the maintenance of these things in a proper fashion.
  Mr. President, failing to meet our transportation infrastructure has 
real economic needs. One study estimated that congestive roads in our 
Nation's 25 largest urban areas costs motorists $43 billion annually in 
wasted time and fuel-- $43 billion. I guess when it is said like this, 
the impact isn't real. When it is translated into costs per person or 
cost per family, it comes down to a significant burden that we all have 
to carry.
  Another study estimates that American motorists spent an additional 
$21.5 billion in extra vehicle operating costs in 1994 as a result of 
driving on roads in poor or fair condition.
  I will not identify the community, but I was driving Friday night, it 
was

[[Page S10528]]

after dark, about 8 o'clock at night, and I hit a pothole that was so 
deep that I thought the wheels fell off my car. I got out to see if 
there was any damage, and I could not see it. But this thing was 1\1/2\ 
feet deep. Imagine hitting that if you are going 30 miles an hour and 
suddenly--and it had to be 2 feet wide, so it caught the wheel very, 
very fully.
  We see it all the time in all the States across the country. I hear 
about the condition of roads. The Senator from Illinois held up a 
newspaper article in which it said Illinois had among the worst 
roadways in the country. Well, I think that can be imagined by lots of 
people as they travel the roads in their own States. It is an 
inexplicable condition that arises around when we say that we want 
things to be better but we are unwilling to make the investments in 
maintenance and care that we ought to.
  Meaning no slight to the auto and truck repair industry, with 
statistics like these it is clear that at least one sector of our 
economy will continue to prosper if these conditions are not addressed.
  According to the Department of Transportation, in 1994, $57 billion 
in capital investment would have been required from all levels of 
Government just to maintain--now that is in 1994, $57 billion would 
have been required just to maintain 1993 conditions in performance. 
Imagine that. In 1 year we created a need for $57 billion in capital 
just to maintain the level of quality that existed on our roads.
  In 1993, by comparison, we spent only $40 billion on highway and 
transit capital investment compared to the $57 billion that would have 
been required a year later.
  In other words, to simply maintain current conditions and performance 
on our highway and transit systems we would have to have increased 
investments by over 40 percent. This kind of dramatic underinvestment, 
Mr. President, simply cannot be sustained without our entire country 
paying a severe price in the long run. Keep in mind, Mr. President, 
that what we need to do more than simply maintain current conditions of 
performance if America is going to compete successfully in the future, 
we need to make improvements, as well. There is just no escaping the 
need for a greater commitment of resources.
  For example, to invest in all those highway improvements that would 
yield greater benefits than costs, the Department of Transportation 
estimates we would have to invest $80 billion. In other words, to 
improve conditions to optimal levels based on economic and engineering 
factors, we have to double our current capital investment in highway 
and transit.
  We, in this body, often talk about the importance of the marketplace 
in driving the economy. Well, Mr. President, I have owned, started, and 
operated a business and I know firsthand that investment in the long 
term is required. The first question that we should ask of any 
legislation that purports to address transportation needs is whether in 
the long term it is going to help or hinder our Nation's ability to 
compete effectively in the global marketplace, and whether it will meet 
the needs of our citizens on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis.
  I feel especially strongly about the importance of transportation 
because in my State, as I said earlier, it is critical.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. This transportation bill is critical to every Member of 
the Senate. It is highly critical to every State, is it not?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It certainly is. To answer the question of the 
Senator even more broadly, the fact of the matter is that in this 
change in program some States have had adjustments that are as high as 
48 or 50 percent over their previous year, while other States took a 
cut. So when the Senator asks is it critical to every State, 
absolutely.
  In a State like that of the Senator from Maryland or my State, it has 
a unique character because of the crowded conditions under which our 
people live--densely populated States, metropolitan States.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I 
simply ask the Senator, in fact, my State is the second-highest traffic 
density on the urban interstates of any State in the Nation. You may be 
No. 1. Now, that makes a very important point.
  The purpose of the Federal Highway Program is to provide a high-
quality road system. I understand the claim of donor States and I am 
not trying to minimize that. I think attention has to be paid to that.
  On the other hand, I always thought that the system was directed 
toward the system's needs. The purpose is to construct an interstate 
highway system that serves the entire country, and I think if you are 
going to have real equity in the distribution of highway funds you need 
to look at things like urban areas of highway traffic density, high 
volume of vehicle miles traveled per lane mile, other systems that 
indicate how heavily the infrastructure is being used. I understand in 
rural States they have a different kind of problem and we need to take 
account of that as well.
  One of my difficulties with this bill, and I ask the Senator whether 
it is the same, if he has the same perception, is that this aspect of 
developing an interstate highway system--of course, we built the 
system. Much of it now needs repair and rehabilitation
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Or maintenance.
  Mr. SARBANES. In my State, we have not yet finished the interstate 
system. We have some very pressing problems in the Western part of my 
State with respect to certain interchanges. It was not done the way it 
should have been done to begin with, and we now have to address that 
problem.
  I say to the Senator from New Jersey, I take it it is your 
perception, as well, that these considerations of system need and the 
needs of the heavily urban areas in which there is this very heavy, 
heavy traffic, have not been adequately addressed in this legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I could not agree more.
  What has happened is the proposed formula is a much more mathematical 
exercise. It says if you put in this dollar's worth of gas tax, that 
you have to get back your dollar's worth of investment in the highways.
  On the other hand, States like yours and States like mine get a far 
less return on our total tax dollars, those dollars sent to the Federal 
Government, than many or most States in the country. In my case, we 
happen to be number 50 in return on dollars that we send down to 
Washington. This was one place that there was an opportunity to regain 
some of the advantage that was rightfully ours, and it is being 
ignored.

  So to answer the Senator's question, there are many conditions that 
ought to be evaluated in terms of a national transportation investment 
that go beyond simply the dollar-for-dollar return on gas tax. It ought 
to consider what contribution does the State of Maryland, does the 
State of Rhode Island, does the State of New Jersey make to the 
national economy, to the national well-being as a result of having its 
roads available and open and in decent condition so that traffic that 
goes from place to place--from the market, from the farm to the port, 
from the factory to the airport--what kind of a return ought we to get 
for that? What kind of compensation ought we get for that?
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, I think he is 
addressing a very important point.
  Let me give an example from my State. Maryland has one of the highest 
density levels on urban interstate in the country, as I said before, 
second. Apparently, New Jersey is first. The Baltimore-Washington 
region interstates are the second most congested in the Nation. Now, my 
colleagues can appreciate this because they are here in Washington and 
they have some experience with this highway network I am talking about.
  We are in the center of the I-95 corridor, the north to south 
corridor. This corridor generates a huge amount of commercial and 
passenger traffic. It is adjacent to the Nation's Capital which 
generates additional commercial and personal through traffic. We are 
serving not just our own needs but national needs by having a first-
rate interstate system here. In fact, we have a disproportionately 
large responsibility for complex infrastructure projects that

[[Page S10529]]

need maintenance and rehabilitation. These projects--I-95, the Capitol 
beltway, the Baltimore beltway, I-70--all carry through traffic 
generated outside the State of Maryland. Now, there are other States 
along the eastern corridor--New Jersey is an obvious example--that are 
sort of through States. In other words, a lot of highway traffic is 
moving through those States, going from one point to another point, and 
neither point related to the State through which they are passing.
  Yes, we have to invest significant amounts of money, not only the 
Federal share that we receive, but State and local share as well, in 
order to maintain this highway network if we are going to maintain the 
existing infrastructure and have the efficient movement of freight and 
passenger traffic.
  Now, my perception of this bill is it does not adequately address 
that consideration, that that is one of the things that has not been 
focused on.
  The formula allocation represents a very significant drop for my 
State from 1.72 to 1.51. The amount of money now that is provided for 
the interstate discretionary program, as I understand it in this 
legislation, is severely limited. As I understand it, and I ask the 
Senator from New Jersey, there is only $140 million a year nationwide 
for both interstate highways and bridges, is that correct?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct, and it is an appropriate deficiency 
to note.
  By the way, as the Senator talks about the State of Maryland and a 
change in formula, ours goes from 2.82 to 2.41. There is a difference 
of more than 15 percent in just that change in formula.
  The Senator was not in the Chamber when I talked about the fact that 
if changes were necessitated in formula, they should have been debated 
at length. They should have had the appropriate kind of committee 
reviews. I know the Senator sits on the committee where transit needs 
are considered. We have the Commerce Committee involved with aviation 
and rail, we have the Environment Committee on which I sit and under 
whose auspice this bill is presented for highway and road travel. To 
suddenly change that formula without considering the national aspects 
of the requirements that Maryland has imposed upon it or that New 
Jersey has imposed upon it--Maryland happens to be in a critical 
location in terms of our defense needs. If there is an emergency, we 
have to be able to move troops and equipment through in a hurry. That 
readiness costs something to maintain.
  There is also a requirement, I know the State of Maryland shares with 
New Jersey an interest in having high-speed rail service pass through 
your State and commuter rail service. Look at the success we have seen 
just with the establishment of WAMATA. The investments in those areas 
are critical if we are going to have a national perspective.
  Can you imagine a system to serve the Capital and environs that isn't 
contributed to in significant measure by the Federal Government? As it 
happens, it is, but it describes very poignantly the need that exists 
when you participate in a national scheme.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I make a correction? The Senator from Maryland was 
in error in a statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield for a response.
  Mr. CHAFEE. There was only $140 million available for interstate 
repair and maintenance. That is in the Secretary's discretionary 
account and that is exactly what he has under the currently existing 
ISTEA measure, but divided among the States it is some $6 billion--with 
a ``b'' for billion.
  So it is a long way from the $140 million the Senator thought was all 
that was available.
  Mr. SARBANES. The amount that is divided among the States, as I 
understand it, is a formula allocation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is right.
  Mr. SARBANES. I recognize there is a formula allocation. Here is the 
problem, and I am glad the Senator interjected because I think it is 
very important to focus on this problem. I understand the committee's 
problem. The committee had to do a formula allocation, Members are at 
them from all over the place, about the formula allocation.
  Now, I concur with the Senator from New Jersey, and I appreciate his 
continuing to yield to me for a question. We didn't know what the 
formula figure was going to be until the committee came out with the 
formula figure, and then we were presented with this formula figure. So 
we take a strong hit on the formula which I think does not adequately 
recognize the kind of transportation challenges with which we are 
confronted which have a national import.
  Now, in addition to the formula allocation, there are also other 
moneys that are available in the legislation--various discretionary 
programs. The interstate discretionary program is one, the public land 
highways is another, the Appalachian regional highway program is yet 
another, and there are others, as well, which can be used if the 
committee is saying to us we can't do the formula allocation in a way 
that takes into account all of these considerations. Then the least the 
committee should do is have these other programs which can then be used 
to offset the unfavorable impact of the formula allocations. It is my 
perception that that hasn't been done, as well.
  Now, we have one unique problem in my State that I want to bring to 
people's attention, and that is, the Federal Government owns the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge; it is federally owned. It is the only facility 
on the interstate system in which that is the case. Now, the committee 
has provided $900 million, and that is certainly an important step 
forward, but it is barely over half of what would be required to get a 
new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which every expert agrees is necessary.
  Now, the States have indicated that once a new bridge is done, they 
are willing to take over the responsibility of maintaining it from then 
on out. But it is clearly unfair to dump the responsibility upon them 
that was not met by the Federal Government. There is no way the States 
can pay for this thing. Maryland receives, under the formula 
allocation, a little over $300 million a year in Federal highway money. 
We are going to need, for one bridge, $1.6 to $1.8 billion, and this 
legislation provides $900 million. I think it is the Federal 
Government's responsibility, frankly, to deal with the problem of this 
bridge. They need to face up and deal with that problem. Once they have 
dealt with it, then it can be shifted over to State responsibility. But 
you ought not to dump this responsibility, which the Federal Government 
failed to meet, upon the State. So this is a whole list of the kind of 
problems we are talking about, which this legislation fails to come to 
grips with.
  (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, if I might say to the Senator from Maryland, $900 
million gets you a pretty good bridge, I think, if the Senator is 
discouraged by only $900 million for the bridge. I appreciate their 
approach to that as well. There have been some estimates that go as 
high as $1.6 billion. But the Senator ought to be aware of what the 
House proposal is.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am aware of what the House does. I am not arguing the 
House bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The House bill left it entirely up to Virginia and 
Maryland. So I would hope that the Senator would be somewhat grateful 
for what the Senate is doing.
  Mr. SARBANES. Well, I think we indicated that we understood the 
committee has done something. I am pointing out that it is not adequate 
to meet the problem. This is a pressing problem in the interstate 
system. The House approach would actually create a gaping hole in the 
interstate system. I think the committee recognized that problem at 
least. But, again, I am talking about this in the context of the other 
things that are happening in this legislation. If the committee came to 
me and said, look, we have to redo a formula allocation, we understand 
the problems it creates for you, we understand you have some other 
pressing highway needs, and we are trying to help you address those, 
but that hasn't happened. Any effort to try to get at that hasn't met 
with any success.
  I understand the committee has a difficult job and I, frankly, have 
been supportive of the effort to try to find more money with which the 
committee can work. I say to my friend from New Jersey, isn't it a fact 
that if more money were available, it would be easier to work out these 
problems?

[[Page S10530]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.
  Mr. SARBANES. Some of us have supported the committee in its effort 
to find more money, and you come in and you are confronted with a bill 
like this.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I had an opportunity earlier today to talk about 
that. I will soon yield to my good friend from Montana. I had an 
observation earlier today in a discussion that we had in miniconference 
out here that more money is more money, except that if more money comes 
and we continue to lose our share, it doesn't do what we think it ought 
to do, which is to improve the system generally, but not at the expense 
of our respective States. That is really the nub of our discussion.
  If the Senator from Montana is asking if I will yield for a response, 
I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. This is basically a discussion here 
on the bill. Obviously, it is the goal of the committee and the Senate 
to come up with a fair highway bill. That is what the Senator from 
Rhode Island is attempting to do and the Senator from Virginia, who was 
on the floor, the Senator from Montana, and the two Senators now 
speaking seek that same goal. It is also true that we are in a 
transition.
  This country is changing. The country, in 1997, is not what it was in 
1987, not what it was in 1980. The fact is that, in 1991, in an ISTEA 
bill, the highway bill, this Congress essentially did not update data. 
It just took the 1980 data. That is, lane and miles traveled, vehicle 
miles traveled. We even used a postal roads component which was enacted 
maybe at the turn of the century. We used very old data when we wrote 
the ISTEA bill that we are now currently operating under. It is just 
unfortunate.
  At the same time, in the earlier ISTEA bills--not the one before us, 
but current law and the earlier one--the main effort was to complete 
construction of the interstate system. That was the main purpose of the 
program in the first place. The current ISTEA bill--not the one on the 
floor, but current law--based its formula essentially, as I said, on 
old data and upon completion of the interstate program, and that is 
what we did.

  In 1991, we just built upon the earlier data, which was data for the 
completion of the interstate. And in this last ISTEA, we then 
apportioned more dollars to States which were completing their 
interstate system, compared with States that were not completing their 
interstate system. And the current law basically completes 
construction--not maintenance, but construction--of the interstate 
system. And so now, in 1997, the new transportation bill we are writing 
is one that recognizes that the interstate system has been completed. 
We are now moving toward maintenance and intermodal systems, 
intelligent highway systems, and other programs to modernize, update, 
and make sure that the current transportation bill is no longer based 
upon older data, but rather is based upon current data.
  That means that those States that got a lot of interstate completion 
money in the last several years are not going to get the same 
additional dollars in this bill for the very simple reason that their 
interstates are completed. On top of that, many States built their 
interstates financed with tolls. That is, Federal dollars were not sent 
to those States; rather, those States charged their motorists tolls and 
they built their own interstates, feeling that either they wanted to do 
it earlier or that way was a better way to do it, et cetera. A lot of 
these States, after completing construction of their interstate 
systems, based upon tolls, have now come back to the Congress--in fact, 
in the last ISTEA bill, they were able to convince this Congress that 
they should get reimbursed again, even though those interstate systems 
were paid for by tolls. This Congress paid Federal money again on top 
of the completion of the interstate.
  So we have some States with lots of dollars in the last several years 
of the interstate system--that is, States with lots for interstate 
completion and States with what is called interstate reimbursement 
dollars going to those States. I know this is not a comfortable 
position for some of these States to be in when they look at only the 
dollars because, obviously, those States would like to have a 
percentage increase again in the current years over the past dollars 
they have been receiving, even though their interstate construction, 
which is more expensive in maintenance, is complete, and even though 
those States got interstate reimbursement dollars on top of interstate 
systems that were financed by toll roads.
  So here we are trying to write a bill which recognizes, again, the 
completion of interstate construction and rather moves toward the 
current new era which, as I mentioned, recognizes the completion of the 
interstate construction. Now, the Senators make a very good statement 
and point when they talk about congestion and the number of miles--the 
amount of congestion on I-95 or on the eastern corridor. In fact, as 
the Senator from Maryland said, Maryland ranks second in the Nation in 
urban congestion. That is a fact. The State that ranks No. 1 is 
California. New Jersey is not too far down the list.
  My thought here is that we have the challenge before us of trying to 
address what I think are legitimate concerns and that is the congestion 
factor that the Senators talk about. We are operating under very severe 
constraints; that is, the amount of dollars in this ISTEA bill is 
pretty tight, based upon the budget resolution, the President's 
proposal to Congress, and the increase in ISTEA dollars in this bill is 
not as much as was the increase in ISTEA dollars in the last ISTEA 
transportation bill. So it would be my thought that we find a way to 
amend this bill so that, in effect, if not this year, at least next 
year, there are potentially more dollars available, and in a way that 
certainly it may recognize the concerns of the Senators.
  I am not prepared at this point to say what that might be. There 
needs to be more discussion to determine that. But I think that if the 
amendment that we know is going to come up is passed, there might be a 
way to address that. You certainly have the assurance of this Senator 
to work in the context of that amendment to see if we can potentially 
address some of the concerns the Senators have. But the main point is 
that we are trying to work this all out. We hear what you are saying. 
There are many opportunities: there are amendments, there is a 
conference, and it is my hope that we can pass a bill which is fair to 
all regions of the country. You have my assurance that I will do all I 
can to achieve that goal.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hear the Senator from Montana's 
interests and concerns. I know that he is sincere. We have worked 
together for many years, as I had with the chairman of the committee. 
But if this bill goes as it is, the chances for recovery, I think, are 
pretty slim. And once in place, we will be running uphill to try and 
recover.
  What I would rather see is some kind of a consensus developed that 
includes the States that are now disadvantaged. I was looking at the 
States and I see that percentage points in a State that borders both of 
our States--Pennsylvania--is down to 20-some percent from its formula 
share from where it was --22 percent, I think. We can't deal in this 
room, at the moment, with the poor fate that befell Pennsylvania. I 
don't know how their Senators are going to respond to it. I think if an 
adjustment is going to be made in the formula, there has to be a period 
of transition so that States are held harmless from where they were as 
adjustments take place. This isn't to suggest that review is out of 
order, not at all. I think reviews of the formula are always in order. 
But I think the Senator from Maryland made an important contribution to 
this debate when he highlighted the national interests and national 
obligations that some of our States have, being corridor States, as 
expressed earlier by the Senator from Illinois. A corridor that runs 
east and west produces a lot of traffic through the State of Illinois.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I will.
  (Mr. ALLARD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SARBANES. My State has one of the Nation's great ports, the Port 
of Baltimore.
  Mr. President, the road network from that port to the West is 
critical for the commerce of the Nation--not just for

[[Page S10531]]

the commerce of Maryland, but for the commerce of the Nation. A proper 
system of access for the movement of goods is extremely important to 
the economic health of the country. So all of this needs to be taken 
into account. We are on a major corridor for the movement of passengers 
and traffic north and south, and because of the port, we have a major 
corridor that goes to the Midwest that is critical for the economic 
activity in the Midwest. In many respects it is more critical for the 
economic activity in the Midwest than in my own State. Those things 
need to be considered in this legislation.
  The Woodrow Wilson Bridge that we talked about--and I think the 
chairman is right, they have certainly done a better job than they have 
done in the House. But we still have to get up to a point where we can 
do this bridge, and this level will not allow that to happen. That is a 
major link on the entire interstate highway system. Every expert who 
has examined it says the bridge needs to be replaced within the next 5 
to 6 years. We have to move on that project.
  Those are items that could be addressed I think in this legislation.
  I also agree with the Senator from New Jersey. If you are going to 
start adjusting the formula in recognition of, let's say, population 
shifts, which is what the argument is that is being made, at the 
least--of course, I argue that you have to look at system needs in a 
much more significant way than I think has been done in this 
legislation. But leaving that to one side, at the very least, the 
transition period has to, in effect, cushion the impact of it so that 
States don't all of a sudden find themselves unable to carry through on 
committed transportation projects which are essential for the vitality 
of their economy. That is what the whole issue is that we are 
discussing here.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator is right. The fact of the 
matter is that among the items that have to be considered in 
establishing a proper formula has to be the amount of mileage recorded 
within the States' roadbed systems. In my State we have north-south I-
95, east-west through to I-80, and all kinds of cargo and material pass 
over these roads and cause enormous traffic congestion in New Jersey. 
Our roads are beat up, with heavy trucks taking more than their fair 
share of the abuse. We stand there and kind of grin and bear it. But it 
is in the national interest.
  If one wants to use an analogy, we have to look at what happens in 
environmental legislation. New Jersey, being in the location that we 
are on the east coast, is the unfortunate recipient of material carried 
by the prevailing winds from west to east. They carry all of the 
pollutants and all of the particulate that is thrown up by stacks 
across the rust belt, or the iron belt, or the steel belt in the 
midwestern States. Some of that material travels hundreds of miles to 
arrive at its place of deposition, which is New Jersey, Maryland, and 
New York, in the eastern States.
  So, as we consider environmental legislation, we try to accommodate 
what causes the problem. The problem is caused by the energy and 
industrial nature of things from the Midwest. That is part of the 
formula. Here we are saying, listen, as we create new formulas, we 
ought to debate them more thoroughly and let's talk about the 
congestion on our roads that we receive as a result of being a corridor 
State.
  New Jersey is a corridor State. Commerce travels in the Northeast and 
the rest of the country. Over 60 billion--with a ``b''--vehicle miles 
are traveled on my State's roads annually. Our State is the Garden 
State. It is one of the most important links in our Nation's 
transportation system.
  The Senator from Maryland talked about the value of the port. I know 
that the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the committee, is 
trying valiantly to improve the efficiency of the port outside of 
Providence by making sure that there is rail access and truck access 
that is good. I respect him. And, frankly, I see it as a positive thing 
for my State of New Jersey. Could it be competitive? Of course, it 
could be competitive. But I don't look at it that way. I think our 
country is obligated to continue to produce to the best of our ability 
to the maximum of our capacity. So we need these facilities.
  So whether it is specifically located in New Jersey or Maryland or 
Rhode Island, the fact of the matter is that what happens in the West, 
what happens in the South, and what happens in the center of the 
country depends very much on the capacity of our States in the East to 
be able to help their export market, which is such a big part of 
things, and also the industrial market because parts go from one place 
to another and assemblies are done in different States often than where 
most of the parts are manufactured. It is an essential part of our 
national being. Ten percent of the Nation's total freight either 
originates, terminates, or passes through New Jersey. Almost 60 percent 
of this tonnage is strictly through traffic. Imagine that, 10 percent. 
Goods traveling just 24 hours on a truck from New Jersey will reach a 
market of 40 percent of the population of the United States and 
Canada--over 100 million people.

  Mr. President, these aren't just cars from New Jersey; they are 
vehicles from every State in the Nation, as well as Canada, Mexico, and 
other nations.
  In short, and to rephrase an old joke--I don't like jokes about my 
State--but if you are traveling on the east coast and you don't go 
through New Jersey, you just can't get there from here.
  Millions of people travel along New Jersey's highways. They travel 
from the South, the West, New York City, Boston, and New England. 
People in New York and New England on their journeys travel to places 
like the sea shore, Florida, Washington, DC, the Eastern Shore, or 
trying to get to Long Island Sound and sallying up out of Rhode Island 
and those places. So we have to make sure that our roads are efficient 
and functioning, and that we are not drowning in pollution.
  Every day 324,000 tons of goods made in my State of New Jersey are 
transported on New Jersey's roads by 134,000 trucks. Many of these 
trucks are coming from the ports of Newark and Elizabeth. They are 
transporting cars and other goods that arrive from countries like South 
Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Taiwan, and Indonesia. The entire port 
of New York and New Jersey is the busiest port on the east coast. 
Despite the critical importance of New Jersey's infrastructure to the 
Nation, it is in dismally poor shape and getting worse by the hour, by 
the day, and by the week. Nearly 20 percent of New Jersey's interstate 
mileage is in poor or mediocre condition, and more than 45 percent of 
our bridges are in deficient condition. They are functionally obsolete 
in many cases.
  Mr. President, New Jersey's roads and bridges take an unbelievable 
pounding in hot summers, and harsh winters take a huge toll on our 
infrastructure. Road salt in the winter and ocean salt year round add 
to the damage.
  In addition, New Jerseyans and those who travel through my State 
often face unbearable congestion. Travelers in cars and trucks struggle 
for hours every day with New Jersey's highway stops and starts, and our 
heavily used roads and bridges are badly in need of additional 
maintenance.
  Mr. President, the status of New Jersey's transportation 
infrastructure has a direct effect on the State and the region's 
economic vitality and on every resident's quality of life. But more 
importantly, it affects the entire Nation's economic vitality. The 
future challenges to that infrastructure are ominous. In the next 6 
years there probably will be more travel on our roads, more cargo 
coming into our ports, and more rapid deterioration of our 
transportation infrastructure. That is not a particularly pleasant 
prospect, and I think that we have to prepare for it in the best 
possible way. The best possible way is to recognize that States like 
mine and those such as the State of Maryland have unique conditions 
that have to be met.
  I once again would like to review and restate the number of States 
that are included--Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
California, and Massachusetts, to name but a few. There are eight 
States in all that seem to have the heaviest share of the load. 
Unfortunately, the ISTEA bill before us does not adequately respond to 
the challenge that we face. It doesn't address New Jersey's growing 
needs.
  Note that the highway title addresses density on highways, or 
congestion.

[[Page S10532]]

 While it recognizes the particular situation of some States, when it 
comes to heavily used, densely populated urban States with significant 
commerce and trade traffic, the bill is virtually silent. If a State's 
motorists choose to not guzzle gas, either by using mass transit, 
walking, or biking, this bill will penalize them. Therefore, it has to 
be improved. I am not saying that New Jersey should get more than its 
fair share. I am simply saying, Mr. President, that it should and must 
get its fair share--nothing more, nothing less. The bill just doesn't 
do that.
  Mr. President, there is another bit of word and verbiage that goes 
into the debate on highways. We talk about donor States and donee 
States. The distinguished colleague of ours from Louisiana said you 
can't explain that to the folks back home and said they want to see 
whether or not their road and their infrastructure is getting 
attention, whether the potholes are being filled, and whether the roads 
are being maintained in a suitable fashion.
  So I get tired of hearing complaints that emanate from the so-called 
donor States. To make it very simple for any who might be listening or 
watching, donor States are those that send down more in tax revenues, 
gasoline taxes in particular, than they get back. The others are called 
donee States. The donor States complain about how they don't get their 
fair share of highway and transit funding. Many of those donor States 
do quite well when one examines the total of Federal return on the 
dollar. Many of these States simply don't have the same needs as New 
Jersey and other high-density transportation corridors.
  Mr. President, when it comes to defense spending, spending by the 
Interior Department, agriculture spending, many urbanized, densely 
populated States come out year after year after year as big losers. But 
we have not said yet that the Government must spend as much on national 
parks in our region as we spend in western States. We have not yet 
demanded an equal share of the defense spending or an equal share of 
agricultural spending. It is not realistic. Those States that now have 
these investments being made have particular needs.
  Those needs strike me as being part of the national requirement. If 
there is a national park in Colorado, I would like to see it maintained 
because in visits by my constituents or my family or people from around 
the country, I want them to be proud of it. I want them to say, why, 
there is nothing prettier than Estes Park and other parks that exist in 
Colorado, and so it should be. I want to make sure if airspace is 
needed so that our airplanes can fly and practice and train--our Air 
Force Academy is in the State of Colorado--we continue to invest in 
that and in that skill we have. I think it is going to be more required 
in the future. But a large part of that investment vests in Colorado. 
So what. It is part of my national interest.
  Or an equal share of agriculture spending. New Jersey is still called 
the Garden State, and despite the density of population that we have--
the most densely populated State in the country, I remind everybody--
about 25 percent of our State is still forested, and that is really 
pleasant to see. I see it often from airplanes. We have one reserve 
that is a million acres today. But we are not looking for assistance 
with our agriculture, even though our farmers perform an important 
service for the community, because these demands are unrealistic. They 
do not take into account the real needs of the entire Nation. They do 
not consider that there is a benefit for all Americans by strategically 
focusing resources to meet critical problems.
  I said earlier and I repeat, when floods took over the Dakotas and 
parts of Minnesota or Missouri, I wanted us as a country to help out, 
and I was very vocal about it. I felt it was a responsibility that we 
had, again, to confirm that we are one nation.
  The fact is each State has its own individual needs, and they change 
from time to time. New Jerseyans send $15 billion more per year to 
Washington than they receive in total Federal dollar return--$15 
billion more. The Federal Government's job is to apportion funding 
where need is greatest, and sometimes we swallow hard and we say, if 
one State has a higher need for family spending, welfare, OK, we are 
willing to take some share of that.
  On the other hand, Mr. President, when it is our turn, I think we 
ought to get some consideration. The one area where we are a donee 
State is transportation, and that is because there was some recognition 
that so much of the Nation's traffic load was carried by the State of 
New Jersey. But now the intention is to change it. If I may say so--and 
I do not mean to castigate --the fact is that it was almost whimsical 
in its development, because States like mine took some pretty big hits.
  Well, my State and my region's needs are largely in transportation. 
That is our equivalent to agriculture for Iowa and Nebraska and those 
States. We are in the most densely populated part of the country, with 
some of the most highly traveled and congested roads. Anyone who has 
driven the New Jersey Turnpike, Route 1, Atlantic City Expressway, 
Interstate 80 can attest to these needs. As I have already noted, many 
of these vehicles on these highways are from States other than New 
Jersey. My kids used to love to play a game when they were little. We 
would write down the States from the license plates that we saw, and we 
would get pretty close to 49 besides ours because there were so many. I 
didn't always enjoy being in the middle of that confluence of traffic, 
but at least it kept the kids seated.
  Mr. President, New Jersey isn't just asking from the Federal 
Government transportation dollars. We are investing our own funds in 
our infrastructure as well. State and local governments in New Jersey 
spend more highway dollars per lane mile than any other State in the 
Nation--our money, reinvested in our infrastructure. We made this 
commitment to transportation simply because our needs were so great. 
But that does not excuse getting our fair share from the Federal 
Government.
  There is nothing in any study, census projection, or economic trend 
to indicate that these needs will diminish in the future. In fact, 
quite the opposite is true. Some States are arguing that they should 
get back at least 90 percent of those payments they have made into the 
highway trust fund. But I still think that their needs have to be 
examined before that return is justified. It is part of a contribution 
to the national well-being, and it makes no sense to take away funds 
from regions that have greater needs.
  I remind everyone that we are a single nation, one nation, and not a 
collection of autonomous sovereignties. Can you imagine what would have 
happened if at the Constitutional Convention our delegates included a 
clause in the Constitution mandating that each State must get back from 
the Federal Government 90 percent of what it paid in taxes? What would 
have happened to our country? We have people now who individually say, 
well, I don't want to pay for this. We have people from extremes on the 
right like militia who say, I don't want to pay for the kind of liberal 
judicial system that we have, or I do not want to pay for that program 
or this program. Then we have people on the other side who say, I am 
unwilling to have my dollars go for defense needs. But we say, too bad; 
you are an American; you are part of American society. You are part of 
a great nation. You are part of a country the likes of which has never 
existed on this Earth before and perhaps never will again. But we say, 
that's your obligation. We are one country. We are one people with 
sometimes different actions, but we come together when we have to.

  Those of us old enough to have served in World War II saw it, as did 
the distinguished chairman of the Environment Committee, who had a very 
distinguished war record. Mine was not so distinguished, but I did what 
I had to in Europe in World War II. We came together as a country. We 
sometimes forget that obligation, that we are one nation and we ought 
not to pick at one another's opportunities or advantage and say, OK, 
you've got this because you are a donee State and therefore we are 
going to take it away from you.
  Unless the whole picture is examined, it is not a complete one. We 
certainly never could have maintained our great national parks and 
forests; we could never have saved thousands of family farms from 
bankruptcy in difficult economic times; we could never afford to pay 
for emergency relief from earthquakes, floods or hurricanes; we would 
certainly not have a national transportation system; some States would 
have

[[Page S10533]]

paved roads and some States would have dirt roads; there would be no 
interstate highway system, no airports in rural areas if we said it 
wasn't part of the national responsibility.
  I repeat that I am a supporter of essential air service for which the 
Federal Government pays a significant subsidy. For every passenger that 
flies into some of those airports, the Federal Government will pay two 
or three times, four times the cost for the seat because we do not want 
to see those communities isolated. They are very dependent. So we say, 
OK, it is part of an obligation we have. We certainly wouldn't have a 
national passenger rail system. It may be more regional than national, 
but it travels through important regions of the country. I don't know 
of any State, as infrequent as Amtrak rail service might be, that wants 
to give it up very quickly. We would not have a space program; we would 
not have a National Science Foundation; we would not have the National 
Institutes of Health; more importantly, we probably would not exist as 
a nation because we would have no national defense, no Army, Navy, 
National Guard, Air Force.
  Thanks to the wisdom and forethought of our Founders, there is no 
minimum guarantee clause in the Constitution except to protect the 
individual rights. Perhaps some in New Jersey think we might be better 
off if there were. We have a high per capita income, but we ought not 
to be penalized for it. We make our contribution in many ways. The fact 
is our Nation is stronger because Federal aid has been provided to 
areas with the greatest needs, and that is the way it ought to be.
  I want to talk for a moment about another matter that is important to 
my State, mass transit. Good public transit increases the efficiencies 
of existing roadways, especially in congested areas where many people 
live. Transit is essential to rural, suburban and urban residents. It 
is a cost-effective solution to health care access, a key to successful 
welfare reform, and an environmentally sensible way to meet commuting 
needs. It is an increasingly important service for the elderly, for 
persons with disabilities, for students and those who cannot afford a 
car.
  Anyone who questions the necessity for transit services only has to 
visit some of the more populated States like New Jersey or New York or 
California, where they do not have enough public transportation, or 
Maryland or the District of Columbia. The most densely populated State 
in the Nation, New Jersey has also the most vehicle density on its 
roads. Located between two heavily populated metropolitan areas, New 
Jersey is known as the corridor State. Over 60 billion vehicle miles 
are traveled on New Jersey's roads annually. The ability of trucks and 
cars to move freely on New Jersey's roads directly affects our economy. 
It affects the congestion, which has a dramatic effect on the 
individuals living there.
  It is also a primary commuter State. Millions of New Jerseyans face 
serious commuter problems each day. In many areas of New Jersey there 
is nowhere else to put a new road. Many of our people work in New York 
City, and their residences are in New Jersey. Or in the southern part 
of our State, many of our people work in the city of Philadelphia. They 
have to be able to get back and forth to work. But we simply can't 
build ourselves out of congestion. That is why my State is so heavily 
reliant on mass transportation. Nearly 10 percent of the New Jersey 
work force uses mass transit.
  We have a line just recently created called the Midtown Direct, a 
project in the urban core, which is a program very successful thus far, 
designed to bring together railroad connections that exist throughout 
our State into New York. Midtown Direct was one part of it, and it was 
inaugurated 1 year ago. Within weeks, the ridership doubled its 
projections.
  Transit in New Jersey is well used and well supported. Nationally, 
transit has also proven to reduce congestion and, of course, save 
dollars.
  A 1996 report conducted by the Federal Transit Administration found 
that the annual economic loss to U.S. business caused by traffic 
congestion is $40 billion, and the additional annual economic loss if 
all U.S. transit commuters drove instead would be $15 billion. So we 
are looking at huge differences in our economy.
  It is also obviously good for the environment. According to the 
Federal Transit Administration, transit use saves 1.5 billion gallons 
of auto fuel in our country each year, 1.5 billion gallons. If one 
wants to worry about what happens to America's independence, one need 
only look at the quantity of imported oil that we are bringing into the 
country. Transit is energy efficient, and the less gasoline used the 
less the United States is dependent on foreign oil.
  Americans also see direct public health benefits from transit use. 
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, up to 110 million 
Americans breathe air that is unhealthful. The American Lung 
Association estimates that the national health care bill for air-
pollution-related illness is $40 billion a year. Transportation sources 
cause 40 to 60 percent of pollution that produce ozone, and 70 to 80 
percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Nearly one-third of carbon 
dioxide emissions, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from 
transportation sources. And, on this debate, no matter how detached or 
how unbelieving a person might be, one cannot be unconcerned about what 
we see happening with our climate, what can be happening with our 
health in this country. Much of the problem, in my view, emanates from 
the fact that we have these emissions in ever-increasing quantities in 
this country, as much as we fight against it.
  The fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emission is the 
transportation sector. Transit produces real environmental benefits. On 
average, riding transit instead of driving cuts hydrocarbon emissions 
that produce smog by 90 percent and carbon monoxide by more than 75 
percent. One person using mass transit for a year instead of driving to 
work saves our environment 9 pounds of hydrocarbons, 62 pounds of 
carbon monoxide, and 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides.
  It doesn't stop there. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. transit 
industry and its riders have prevented the emission of 1.6 million tons 
of hydrocarbons, 10 million tons of carbon monoxide, and 275,000 tons 
of nitrogen oxides into the air; the importation of 20 billion gallons 
of gasoline; and the construction and maintenance of the 20,000 lane-
miles of freeways and arterial roads and 5 million parking places to 
meet demands, saving at least $220 billion a year.
  Transit is an important part of our Nation's transportation system, 
and we ought to ensure that it is afforded the same priority as other 
modes of transportation.
  It is obvious, this bill also needs to address a crucial safety 
question, and one that I have worked on very hard over the years. That 
is, in the pursuit of safer highway travel we ought to do what we can 
to get drunken drivers off the road. This bill has to include a 
reduction in the blood alcohol measure, from .10 to .08 as a national 
standard. It is already, by the way, the standard in 15 States.
  Let me explain why we need this new standard. In 1996, 17,000 people 
died in alcohol-related traffic accidents; 17,000 people. By the way, 
if we examine the history of the Vietnam war, where we lost over 50,000 
of our service people, the high year was about 17,000 people killed. 
Every year in America, 17,000 people die in alcohol-related traffic 
accidents. It is a national disgrace. Of those, 3,700 people, almost 9 
percent, had alcohol levels below the .10 standard that most States 
enforce. Mr. President, .08 BAC laws have proven to have an effect on 
even heavy drinkers. The beverage industry fights us, and will continue 
to fight us on this. They tell you that it will ruin business, that the 
.08 law targets social drinkers and makes criminals out of them. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. When I wrote the law that made 
the drinking age across this country 21, the minimum drinking age, the 
beverage and the hospitality people said you are going to ruin our 
business.
  Ruin their business? We saved 10,000 kids from dying on the highways 
since I wrote that law in 1983. Mr. President, 10,000 families don't 
have to mourn the loss of a young child. One can hardly say that 
business in restaurants, taverns, and social places has been bad. They 
can't say it now.

[[Page S10534]]

  To make the point, a man of my height and weight could drink four 
beers in an hour on an empty stomach and still not hit .08. If I drank 
a fifth beer, I would be over the .08 but I would still be under .10. 
Should anyone be legally entitled to drink that much alcohol and then 
get on the road? The question answers itself. Of course not. Keep this 
in mind, when you look at a group of people in a bar or restaurant 
having drinks, the .08 law would only affect one of those people, and 
that is the person driving a car.
  We are not asking people to stop drinking. This is not a morality 
play. I am not telling people that they should not drink to their 
pleasure. If someone falls off a bar stool, as long as he doesn't fall 
on me it doesn't hurt me. But if he gets behind the wheel of a car, 
Heaven forbid, he could take away a child, a grandchild, mother, 
father, brother, sister. It should not be allowed. It's a criminal act. 
It turns an automobile from a thing of pleasure to a lethal weapon.

  We say just control your habits. There is a point at which they need 
to put the cork on the bottle for their own safety and for the safety 
of everyone else who shares the road with them. Studies have shown that 
States that have adopted .08 laws have had significant drops in 
alcohol-related traffic deaths and that a national .08 law could 
prevent up to at least 500 to 600 fatalities a year. Just that 
difference, from .08 to .10, could save 500 to 600 people a year from 
dying on the highways.
  In the State of Virginia, after it adopted its .08 law, it saw a drop 
not only in traffic deaths but in driving under the influence arrests 
as well.
  The Federal legislation that I introduced years ago to make 21 the 
national drinking age engendered a heck of a fight with the liquor 
lobby. But the law has saved 10,000 lives, it is estimated. I believe 
that .08 will save thousands more in a period of time. If we want 
confirmation whether or not we are on the right track, the people who 
support the .08 limit include the American Medical Association, the 
American Insurance Association, the American Trucking Association, the 
National Safety Council, and the National Sheriff's Association.
  Those who oppose .08, and I have to ask why, are principally in the 
beverage and hospitality area. We ought to let them know that we don't 
oppose social behavior of one's choice in restaurants and public 
gatherings, but we don't want to add anything to the fatality rate that 
can be prevented.
  Another safety issue that we are talking about in the legislation is 
big trucks. Trucking companies are trying to get Congress to allow 
bigger trucks on the highways, double and triple trailers. My view, and 
that of many others, is no. Motorists in my home State of New Jersey 
want relief from the rising death toll of the past few years. Consider 
what we are talking about here. A triple trailer can be 120 feet long, 
longer than a Boeing 747 jetliner. And it can weigh 64 tons. That is 
quite a behemoth on the highway. I am sure if you let your imagination 
work, and think about what the consequence can be when you are driving 
on a highway on a dark night, it is raining, doing about 55, maybe 60 
miles an hour. That's a safe speed in these conditions.
  Suddenly a line of trucks starts to pass you. It is scary enough when 
the truck is a standard 44-foot length. But what is it like if a line 
of three of these 120 footers went by, each one of them three times, 
practically, the size of the single truck that has you worried in the 
first place? It would be like driving through an eclipse. For more than 
a solid minute the trucks would block your view of the road except for 
what is directly in front of you. For more than a minute your 
windshield would be sprayed by the tire wash off 32 sets of wheels.
  Your heart jumps each time one of those triple trailers weaves 
slightly into your lane. You know this type of truck needs at least 
1\1/2\ football fields to come to a stop. Imagine that, 1\1/2\ football 
fields. And it's worse in the rain. This kind of heart-thumping drive 
would become more common if we allowed triple trailers greater access 
to highways. I know the people in my State don't want it. In 1994 to 
1995, fatal accidents involving trucks were up 13 percent. Trucking 
accidents overall were up 16 percent, 84 people died in each year, 1994 
and 1995, and one stretch of road in my State, route 287, saw the 
numbers of accidents involving trucks quadruple between 1988 and 1994.
  I agree with them, the only cargo vehicle this size should also have 
wings and be racing down a runway, not barreling down a highway.
  Mr. President, the debate on ISTEA is not only inevitable, it's 
essential, because this is such an important piece of legislation in 
our national structure. I agree that the chairman of the Environment 
Committee, the ranking member of the Environment Committee, wants to do 
the same things in their objectives as I do, and almost everyone else 
does. That is to continue to invest in our infrastructure, our 
transportation infrastructure, making sure that we develop and refine, 
to the best of our ability, each of the modes of transportation: 
Highways, aviation, rail, transit, waterways. We want to know that all 
of these things are operating in the safest manner that can accommodate 
most of our people efficiently.
  The potential is there. I have been working publicly and privately to 
help meet that objective, as have my colleagues, but this bill just 
doesn't do it. I want to help bring a bill to the floor that meets 
these needs.
  (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think our colleagues in the House 
have the right idea, and that is to pass a temporary extension. If we 
pass a temporary extension, I think it has to be based on the formula, 
upon the structure of ISTEA as it presently is, not a newer version 
that changes things. Then we can sit down and create a plan that is 
fairer to all States in all regions and addresses these crucial needs. 
But it will take some significant discussion.
  This is a major, major change that is contemplated, and because it 
was concentrated in ultimately a few hands doesn't mean that it didn't 
pursue the right path, but what it does mean is that it has not fully 
considered all of the needs of the country, as we see from the 
resistance to this, opposed by a number of us from States particularly 
in the East, but not exclusively.
  My proposal is to see if we can find, not necessarily in order of 
importance, A, a substitute; B, a program that in transition will give 
States a chance to make adjustment, will hold those States that are 
being asked to take less of the funding pie harmless from year to year 
as the formula changes. I think that is the fairest way to do it; C, to 
listen carefully to what our colleagues in the House of Representatives 
have to say about their version of ISTEA. I am not talking about the 6-
month bill that we see out there, necessarily, because I don't see a 6-
month extension coming unless it proceeds under the present formula and 
structure. But to take perhaps another year in transition and try to 
develop a fairer piece of legislation, try to develop a piece of 
legislation that considers the needs, not just the tax cash-flow that 
results from gasoline taxes, because, to be repetitive for emphasis, 
just because a State sends down a dollars' worth of tax dollars doesn't 
necessarily mean that it ought to get a dollar in return on 
transportation investments if it, in fact, gets other returns that are 
far greater than the tax dollars they send down.
  I call painful attention to the fact that my State is 50th in return 
on the Federal tax dollar. The State of New Jersey is 50th. To make it 
abominably simple, it means that if we send down a dollar in taxes, we 
get 69 cents back--69 cents; 31 cents of New Jersey taxpayers' 
contributions go to programs that benefit other States, other regions 
of the country.
  We haven't seen a tax revolt in New Jersey. We swallow hard. We think 
we ought to get more. We don't have the need for an agricultural 
subsidy, but listen, if it is going to be given away, we are going to 
want our share. If when we do have some advantage because of need, like 
transportation, and we are not getting our fair share return on that, 
then we are going to say, hey, listen, when I look at the defense 
bill--and I sit on the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee--I want to look at that bill to see if New Jersey gets a fair 
share.
  How absurd a conclusion that would be. Can you imagine, someone 
looking

[[Page S10535]]

at the defense bill and saying, ``Wait a second, does my State get its 
fair share,'' or is the question really, is my country best protected? 
As silly as that sounds, to say, well, give me my fair share, that 
simply means spend the money in my State, even though we don't 
accomplish the objective, I hope that it will be out of consideration 
because it just doesn't make any sense.
  A bill that doesn't take care of the needs of my State, which I 
interpret as the needs of the country, is equally unfair. So I hope as 
the discussion goes on that those who agree with me that this bill 
needs some further review--I realize that this is not untimely to 
consider reauthorizing the bill because the other one has expired, but 
I would like to make sure that we include the needs that my State and 
others have.
  I would like to reread the policy statement that accompanied the 
original ISTEA legislation. These are the views of our distinguished 
colleague and friend to just about everybody here and one of the best-
informed people on transportation infrastructure. That is Senator 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan of the Empire State, the State of New York. 
Again, Senator Moynihan has studied the transportation needs of this 
country. He knows so much about the origins of parts of our 
transportation system, going from the early canals to the development 
of the National Highway System. He said:

       I am especially proud of the principles we set out in ISTEA 
     6 years ago and wish to include them in this bill.
       It is the policy of the United States to develop a National 
     Intermodal Transportation System that is economically 
     efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation 
     for the Nation to compete in the global economy, and will 
     move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist 
     of all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected 
     manner, including the transportation systems of the future, 
     to reduce energy consumption and air pollution 
     while promoting economic development and supporting the 
     Nation's preeminent position in international commerce.

  I think it is fair to say that that summarizes certainly the 
beginning principles of ISTEA's development, and we are living off of 
what I would say is a successful period of investment in our 
transportation needs, intermodally balanced, not quite perfect in every 
aspect, not quite sufficient funding.
  When I see what we invest in our transportation infrastructure in 
this country, it saddens me because in some cases we are ranked among 
the lesser developed countries of the world instead of the most 
developed countries of the world. When I look at high-speed rail 
passenger service, our per-capita spending is way below the average, 
and it is not right. This Nation ought to have a transit that can move 
at 180 miles an hour on a consistent basis as they have in France, or 
faster in Japan. I saw the other day where a train in Japan for a 
limited length of travel was at over 300 miles an hour, and they are 
looking to make it even faster. It would relieve our skyways, it would 
relieve our highways, and would broaden the opportunity if we have the 
investment in intercity rail that we need.
  So, Mr. President, I am sorry that we have not come to an agreement 
on what is an appropriate renewal or a new version of ISTEA as it 
expires. Again, I am hoping that we will have time for debate on it. It 
is also my understanding that we are going to have a discussion on the 
appropriateness of continuing an affirmative action program in ISTEA, 
and I welcome that debate because I believe that DOT's affirmative 
action program continues to be necessary and could withstand 
constitutional scrutiny under the standards set forth in the Adarand 
decision.
  I have been told that the junior Senator from Kentucky may be 
offering an amendment to strike the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
Program from this legislation. Perhaps he is content to believe that we 
are now in a colorblind society, but I plan to oppose that amendment 
because I don't think we are.
  The Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
Program, or DBE Program, provides a 10-percent national contracting 
goal for socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. 
Congress created this program in 1982 because minorities and women were 
shut out of transportation construction contracts, shut out not because 
they were any less able to perform the terms of the construction 
contract, shut out not because their bids were higher than their 
competitors, but shut out because they were not white, in some cases 
they were not men. We decided in the 1982 highway bill that the old boy 
network was no longer acceptable in Federal transportation construction 
contracts. We were right then, and the chairman of both the 
Transportation Subcommittee and the full committee were right to 
continue this program in S. 1173.
  I expect we will hear opponents of the DBE Program say that it 
imposes a quota or a set-aside for women- or minority-owned firms. It 
doesn't do that. The statute provides a 10-percent goal which may be 
modified by the Secretary of Transportation. States and municipalities 
are able to set their own goals which may be higher or lower than 10 
percent. If a State doesn't reach its goal, there is no adverse 
consequence.
  I repeat, Mr. President, because it is an important point and one 
which the opponents to the DBE Program may not mention, the DBE Program 
provides a goal, and if States do not meet this goal, DOT does not 
directly withhold transportation dollars. There is no adverse 
consequence.
  So why do we still need an affirmative action program for Federal 
construction contracts? Because we know the private sector looks to the 
public sector for leadership on this issue. If we eliminate the DBE 
Program at this time, we will return quickly to the good old boy 
network that excludes women and minorities. How do we know that? 
Because several States eliminated their versions of DOT's DBE Program, 
and within a matter of months, minority- and women-owned and controlled 
businesses received fewer, if any, construction contracts.
  Minorities comprise approximately one-fifth of our population. Just 
under 10 percent of construction firms are minority owned and 
controlled, yet receive only 5 percent of construction receipts.
  I will give you another statistic, Mr. President. White business 
owners in the construction industry receive over 50 times as many loan 
dollars of equity capital as minority owners with the same borrowing 
characteristics.
  Mr. President, I ask opponents of the DBE affirmative action program 
to explain why these numbers are so disproportionate if we did, in 
fact, live in a colorblind society.
  I expect, Mr. President, we are going to have a lengthy discussion 
about the DBE program and whether or not it is constitutional. Again, I 
look forward to the debate because I believe after a full discussion, 
the majority of my colleagues will agree that the DBE program is 
constitutional under the Adarand standard.
  In the 1995 Adarand decision, seven of the nine Supreme Court 
Justices recognized the continuing need for affirmative action programs 
to remedy the lingering effects of racial discrimination. After 
Adarand, affirmative action programs must serve a compelling 
governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to address that 
interest.
  The first court to apply this strict scrutiny standard set forth 
under Adarand found that Congress met the compelling-Government-
interest component. It disagreed that the DBE program was narrowly 
tailored, but the district court judge went far beyond the Supreme 
Court's holding by virtually deciding that no affirmative action 
program can be narrowly tailored.
  The Justice Department is rightfully appealing this decision.
  Mr. President, there will be time to discuss this matter further at a 
later time. I look forward to that.
  I am confident that the Senate will accept the responsibility of 
looking at this program calmly and rationally rather than simply trying 
to fuel the fires of passion and hatred which the issue of affirmative 
action can ignite. Should the junior Senator from Kentucky offer this 
amendment, I hope my colleagues will oppose it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S10536]]

  Mr. CHAFEE. What is the question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________