[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 141 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10837-S10846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will return to 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for construction of 
     highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Chafee/Warner Amendment No. 1312, to provide for a 
     continuing designation of a metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       Chafee/Warner Amendment No. 1313 (to language proposed to 
     be stricken by the committee amendment, as modified), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Chafee/Warner Amendment No. 1314 (to Amendment No. 1313), 
     of a perfecting nature.
       Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works, with instructions.
       Lott Amendment No. 1317 (to instructions of the motion to 
     recommit), to authorize funds for construction of highways, 
     for highway safety programs, and for mass transit programs.
       Lott Amendment No. 1318 (to Amendment No. 1317), to strike 
     the limitation on obligations for administrative expenses.

  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate, if 
they have statements in connection with this legislation, to come over 
and deliver them. Now is an excellent opportunity. I do not envision a 
great deal else happening this afternoon. But this is an ideal chance 
for those who have statements or questions that they wish to pose or to 
discuss the bill in some substance. Now is the opportunity.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The chairman of the committee is accurate. We all know 
that very often there is the tendency to wait until the last moment, 
and we do not get an opportunity sometimes to say what we want to say 
or offer amendments. Now is the opportunity to speak on the bill. 
Senators may have questions about the bill. This is an excellent 
opportunity to take advantage of that because there may not be another 
opportunity.
  So I, first of all, encourage Senators who have an interest in one of 
the more important pieces of legislation, certainly one of the more 
expensive bills that this Congress is going to pass this year, to come 
on over. Tell us what you think. If you may have a problem with the 
bill, perhaps we can work it out. But now is the time. I urge Senators 
on both sides of the aisle to do so because this is an opportune time.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that there would be an objection 
to amendments being considered. But absent that, Senators could come 
over

[[Page S10838]]

and discuss amendments that they might subsequently be filing or be 
permitted to be considered. So there is a chance to get a lot done this 
afternoon if those Senators in their offices would come on over and 
give us the benefit of their wisdom on this matter, which we seek.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest, until such occurs, the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I came back this week after our recess 
very enthusiastic about moving forward on ISTEA. The people in my State 
are very anxious about it. It is an important issue to us, the funding 
of Federal highways. Our State, of course, has lots of highways and not 
too many people.
  I must tell you I am disappointed we are not moving along a little 
faster on something I think is probably the highest priority that we 
have now before we adjourn for the fall, the funding of our Interstate 
Highway Program in the ISTEA. I hope we do find a way to move forward 
with it. It seems like it is discouraging to us, discouraging to the 
American people, when we find ourselves in gridlock here in the Senate, 
not able to do the kind of things we want to do, the kind of things 
that people want us to do, the kind of things that we came here to do.
  In the meantime, however, I did want to give my thanks to our 
chairman, Senator Chafee, and our ranking member, Senator Baucus, for 
the work they have done to bring this bill to the floor. It is a bill 
that is not easy to manage, certainly, because it affects everyone.
  Everyone has a little different idea of what the formula distribution 
ought to be. I understand that. But they have, with the support of 
their committee, come to this floor with a bill that is, I think, a 
very good bill. It is one of the things that has changed America, this 
idea of having an Interstate Highway System. The current ISTEA has made 
some important changes through the years on surface transportation, but 
now we are moving forward into another changing time. The President has 
used for several years the metaphor of a bridge to the 21st century. 
This is, literally, a bridge to the 21st century. This is literally a 
movement through our transportation system to the 21st century.
  No one would argue this bill is perfect. It does not fit everybody's 
view of what it ought to be, but none do. This one is good and it is 
close. It will create some new rules of the road that I think serve the 
national interest and will help us to build highways and bridges to the 
21st century.
  First, ISTEA is what it says, a national interstate transportation 
system. That means that it goes clear across the country. That means a 
great deal to the people in Wyoming. We are what you call a bridge 
State. We are between the east and the west coast. We are between the 
heavily populated areas. Of course, to get from here to there, you have 
to go through Wyoming, or Kansas, either of us which is a great treat.
  Interestingly enough, Wyoming taxpayers contribute more to the 
highway trust fund per person than any taxpayers in the country--it is 
because we do have lots of roads--nearly $200 per person. Yet we have, 
as do others, a deteriorating highway system, and roads and bridges 
that are, at best, in fair to poor condition.
  We are not satisfying national needs, either. The U.S. Department of 
Transportation reports this country only invests about 70 percent of 
what it needs to be investing in the infrastructure to maintain it. 
These shortfalls hurt us all as taxpayers. What we need is a set of 
efficient and well-maintained roads that interconnect cities. They are 
as important as cities. They are a part of how we export our goods and 
transfer business throughout the country. ISTEA makes smooth movement 
of people and merchandise throughout the year.
  We have a couple of areas that are difficult. One, of course, is to 
find the level of spending that is correct. We have, through the years, 
not spent as much on Federal highways as we take in in Federal highway 
funds, for obvious reasons. One is to help balance the budget. There 
will be arguments about that, and certainly we would like to spend more 
money, take more money out of the fund and put it into the place for 
which it was taxed. It will be controversial. And part of the problem 
is maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget. The other is the 
formula through which the dollars that are spent are allocated 
throughout the country in various States. Each of us seeks to do the 
best we can for our State. I understand that.
  This bill, I believe, achieves a fair funding formula. It recognizes 
a national system. There is an area which I have special concern that I 
intend to raise during the course of this and that is our Federal 
parks. We have considered Federal lands, and in the bill they are 
considered, including Indian reservations, including BLM lands, and it 
includes forest lands. I have to tell you the one that I think stands 
out the most are the national parks, for several reasons.
  One reason is forests and BLM get some cooperation and coordination 
with counties and States to help build roads in those areas, but the 
national parks do not. National parks are responsible for national park 
roads in national parks. They belong to all the people of this country. 
In addition, those who drive in the parks, and there are many miles 
there, each of them are taxed for every mile that goes into the Federal 
program. About 40 percent of existing parks and roads and bridges are 
in poor or failed condition. There is approximately $1.8 billion 
backlog in national park needs for roads--$1.8 billion. Yellowstone 
Park, the largest park in our State and indeed the country, has road 
needs of $250 million. It will receive only $8 million under the 
current law. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the National 
Park Service estimate that a minimum of $161 million annually should be 
spent on park roads.

  So we take a small step toward resolving that problem. I think we 
need to take a larger one. I hope we will give some consideration to 
that. I expect to explore those opportunities.
  ISTEA II as it exists, however, will streamline the program structure 
that we have, give State and local governments more flexibility. I 
think that is extremely important. This is a very diverse country. Each 
of our needs are much different. The needs for highway construction in 
Montana and Wyoming are much different than they are in New Hampshire, 
Florida, and New York. So we need to give to the States the flexibility 
to use those dollars to the best advantage.
  The bill consolidates five major programs into three. I think that is 
useful. It is efficient. It saves money. It provides more flexibility 
in the safety program, and I think that is very important. It will 
always ensure that taxpayers get more for their fuel dollars. We need 
to do that.
  I am very excited about ISTEA II. I think if we can get it on the 
floor as we should it will get great support. It is my feeling we 
should pass this bill through the Congress. I am not enthusiastic about 
the proposition of a 6-month extension. I think State highway 
departments need to have security and knowledge of what will happen in 
the future so they can make the contracts that are necessary to 
implement ISTEA.
  I particularly thank Senators Warner, Chafee, and Baucus for their 
leadership. They have done an excellent job. I intend to support the 
bill. Senator Baucus and Kempthorne and I introduced earlier an ISTEA 
reauthorization bill, STARS 2000, and much has been incorporated into 
this bill. We appreciate that.
  Mr. President, ISTEA II maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA 
law and improves it by more equitable investment in taxpayers' fees and 
ensures people all across the country will have access to all of the 
country and increases the flexibility. I urge our colleagues to step 
aside from all the difficulties in holding up this bill for other 
reasons and move forward with this. There are other things that are 
important, of course. This happens to be before the Senate. We ought to 
do it. The reauthorization has expired. We need to go forward with it. 
This is an excellent bill. I urge we move forward with it and approve 
it as it is.

[[Page S10839]]

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming for his statement. I agree we ought to move forward. This is a 
bill of tremendous importance everywhere in the Nation. It affects 
every State. I hope we can get to it and take up the amendments and 
deal with them up or down and move on to completion of this 
legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, while the chairman is waiting for 
Senators to come over and give their views on the bill, I thought I 
would explain the main provisions in our bill and how the formula works 
so that Senators will better understand these items. If at any time a 
Senator wants to come over and speak, I will be more than pleased to 
interrupt my statement and let that Senator say whatever he or she 
wishes to say.
  Mr. President, today we are currently operating under a 6-year ISTEA 
highway bill. The bill before us is a new 6-year ISTEA bill. This new 
bill will bring up to date some of the provisions that are in the 
current law. By up to date, I refer to the formulas. Believe it or not, 
our current formula uses some historical factors such as the 1980 
census data, as well as the 1916 postal road miles. That outdated data 
is included in the current funding formula to allocate dollars among 
the States. When writing the new bill, the committee thought it made a 
lot of sense to dispense with the use of the old data. After all, some 
of the data are pretty old. The 1980's is old enough, but the 1916 
postal road miles is going a bit far.
  The current ISTEA program also has a lot of accounts. Eleven to be 
exact. It is difficult for States to work with all the different 
accounts. And it is a bit complex. So the new bill we are debating 
today eliminates that old historical data and brings the funding 
formulas up to date. This new bill also reduces the number of accounts 
from 11 to 5. This provides States with a lot more flexibility.
  Let me briefly discuss how the current formulation works. As I said, 
the new bill has five major accounts. One is the Interstate National 
Highway System, which has two components--the Interstate component as 
well as the National Highway System component. Another is the Surface 
Transportation Program and another is the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Program, more commonly known inside the beltway as CMAQ. And we 
have two equity accounts to kind of even things out for States.
  Let me say a little bit about the Interstate National Highway System 
account. It has two components--the interstate component and the 
National Highway System component. We all know what Interstates are; 
that is pretty obvious. Let me say that the National Highway System 
component is essentially our other principal Federal roads. What do we 
do with the interstate components? How are dollars allocated to States 
with respect to the Interstate System that they have? It is very 
simple. Fifty percent of the formula for interstate use is interstate 
lane miles. So the more interstate lane miles a State has, the more 
dollars that State is going to receive under our formula in the bill.
  Well, what about the States that have, say, not quite so many 
interstate lane miles, but the ones they do have are traveled very 
heavily? Those States feel they should receive adequate interstate 
funds because their maintenance costs are higher because they have more 
traffic on their interstates. We take care of that. Fifty percent of 
the interstate component is lane miles and the other 50 percent is what 
we call interstate vehicle miles traveled, otherwise known as VMT. So 
there is a balance here with respect to the interstate dollars that are 
sent out to States. Fifty percent of the interstate component is based 
upon the number of interstate lane miles that a State has. This helps a 
State like my State of Montana which has a lot of interstate lane 
miles. For States without a lot of interstate lane miles, the other 50 
percent measures congestion as vehicle miles traveled. So my State does 
not have a lot of vehicle miles traveled. Contrast that with the State, 
say, of my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, the chairman of 
the committee. I suppose he does not have a lot of lane miles, but his 
vehicle miles traveled is probably high in Rhode Island compared with 
my State of Montana. That is how we allocate dollars that go to 
interstate highways. Virtually all of that money is for maintenance, 
because we have completed the interstate construction in our country. 
Those dollars go to maintenance. And again, we feel we have a fair 
formula that measures the extent and use of the interstate system. I 
should mention that about $6 billion a year that goes into the 
interstate account.

  The other portion of the Interstate National Highway System we call 
the National Highway System component. That is for non-interstate 
highways or highways that have a lot of traffic. Again, $6 billion a 
year goes into the National Highway System component. The formula for 
dividing this money among the States is also fair. It measures the 
extent and use of the other highways. Twenty percent of it is 
apportioned to what we call principal arterial lane miles. Twenty-nine 
percent is apportioned according to principal arterial vehicle miles 
traveled. So a larger percentage goes to those States that have more 
traffic on principal arterials. Eighteen percent is allocated according 
to what we call arterial bridge square foot deficiencies. That is, if 
you look at bridges that are deficient and calculate the number of 
square feet on the bridge, 18 percent of the dollars in our bill in the 
National Highway System account go to States that have those 
deficiencies. Twenty-four percent is allocated according to the State's 
diesel fuel consumption. That is to measure truck use because the large 
trucks that travel our highways do pound our highways much more than 
average cars. Those States that have a lot of diesel fuel consumption 
are probably States that have a lot of truck use and, therefore, need 
more dollars to maintain their highways. Twenty-four percent of the 
National Highway System component is divided according to diesel fuel 
consumption. Nine percent is allocated according to what we call 
principal arterial lane miles per person. This measures the population 
density on principal arterials. So that is the first main component of 
the funding formulas in this bill --the Interstate National Highway 
System.
  Let me mention the next major portion in this bill. It is called the 
Surface Transportation Program. The Surface Transportation Program is 
used for other transportation needs, and it is about $7 billion a year; 
20 percent is allocated according to Federal aid lane miles, 30 percent 
according to Federal aid VMT, vehicle miles traveled--again, congested 
States--25 percent to Federal aid for bridge square foot deficiency, 
and 25 percent according to contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. 
That totals $7 billion. Again, that is the Surface Transportation 
Program.
  The next major program is the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 
Program. This is designed to allow our highway spending to merge, in 
some sense, with our Clean Air Act. That is, we want our highway 
spending to be planned to meet our environmental concerns. CMAQ helps 
States meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. We don't want our 
bill to encourage States to be not in compliance with the Clean Air 
Act. Rather, we would like our bill to encourage cities and States to 
be in compliance with the standards in the Clean Air Act.
  So this bill spends about $1.15 billion a year, according to the 
severity of air quality nonattainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, 
and also for populations living in nonattainment areas. I must say, 
Madam President, that ISTEA, this bill, led the way on programs like 
congestion mitigation air quality, otherwise known as CMAQ, and 
flexibility for States. The person who is principally responsible is 
Senator Moynihan from New York. When he wrote the ISTEA legislation 
about 6 years ago, which we are currently operating under, he was the 
main person that added those provisions in there.
  So I might repeat, Madam President, that our current bill, ISTEA II, 
uses updated data, not old historical data,

[[Page S10840]]

1980 census data and 1916 postal road data. Rather, we use the latest 
census data available each year. We also use data based upon current 
fuel consumption because we think that is somewhat of an indication--
not a perfect indication--of how much State highways get 
used, therefore, the number of dollars that State would need for 
maintenance and upkeep.

  I think this is a pretty good formula. It is one that is fair to 
different regions of the country. We have a very diverse nation. There 
is a wide variety of transportation needs among the States. From Maine, 
the State of the current occupant of the chair, to California to Nevada 
or my State of Montana, every State is different. We have done our very 
best to try to balance the different needs. I think that passage of 
this bill out of committee by a vote of 18 to 0 somewhat reflects the 
views of the Senators on that committee that this is a balanced and 
fair bill. Those eighteen Senators come from the West, from the East, 
from the South. We have Senators from so-called donee States and 
Senators from so-called donor States. I think we have done a good job.
  I hope that Senators who have ideas on how to further improve this 
bill will come down and speak with the chairman of the committee and 
with me because we are more than open to ways to improve this bill.
  Madam President, I will pause now to allow Senators to come down and 
speak.
  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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Hemphill and Elizabeth Cummings of my staff be given floor privileges 
during the debate on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Cherlye 
Tucker, a detailee from the Department of Transportation, who has been 
assisting the EPW staff with ISTEA, be given floor privileges during 
the ISTEA debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters 
written by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record. 
The first letter dated October 7, 1997, includes the cost estimate for 
S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, 
the ISTEA bill we are considering now, as reported by the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  This letter points to certain technical violations of the Budget Act 
in S. 1173. We have made adjustments in the committee substitute for S. 
1173 which was agreed to on October 8 to correct those deficiencies.
  So that is the first letter, Madam President.
  The second letter, dated October 6, 1997, includes more detailed 
information on the Minimum Allocation Program, one of the components of 
the Federal Aid Highway Program that is exempt from the annual 
obligation limitation. The Committee on Environment and Public Works 
used the information in the October 6 Congressional Budget Office 
letter to make the technical budget corrections found in the committee 
substitute amendment to S. 1173.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1997.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1173, the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Clare 
     Doherty (for federal costs), Pearl Richardson (for federal 
     revenues), and Marc Nicole (for the state and local impact).
           Sincerely,
                                                 Paul Van de Water
                                  (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
       Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate


    s. 1173 intermodal surface transportation efficiency act of 1997

(As reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on 
                            October 1, 1997)

                                Summary

       S. 1173 would reauthorize the Intermodeal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and would 
     provide $145.3 billion in contract authority for the Federal 
     Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Federal-Aid Highways 
     program for the fiscal years 1998 through 2003. In addition 
     to providing contract authority, S. 1173 would authorize the 
     appropriation of $2.1 billion for programs managed by the 
     Department of Transportation for the same six-year period. 
     The bill would create a new credit program that would likely 
     result in an increase in tax-exempt financing, and a 
     consequent loss of federal revenues. Because S. 1173 would 
     affect direct spending and receipts, pay-as-you go procedures 
     would apply to the bill.
       S. 1173 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
     governments except as a condition of receiving federal 
     assistance or participating in a voluntary federal program.

               Description of the bill's major provisions

       S. 1173 would reauthorize many of the existing components 
     of the Federal-Aid Highways program and would authorize some 
     new activities within the program. Over the 1998-2003 period, 
     contract authority under the bill would total $137.5 billion 
     for Federal-Aid activities that are subject to annual 
     obligation limitations in appropriation acts, and $7.7 
     billion for activities that are exempt from such obligation 
     limitations. In addition, the bill would authorize the 
     appropriation of $2.1 billion over the same six-year period 
     for new highway-related spending.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002         2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline spending under current law:
    Estimated budget authority \1\...........................       22,428       23,047       23,378       23,884       24,385       24,900       25,425
    Estimated outlays........................................        2,057        2,052        1,650        1,346        1,162        1,064          980
Proposed changes:
    Estimated budget authority...............................            0          665          238          -85         -324         -283           59
    Estimated outlays........................................            0           73          245          333          407          482          552
Total spending under S. 1173:
    Estimated budget authority...............................       22,428       23,712       23,617       23,800       24,060       24,617       25,484
    Estimated outlays........................................        2,057        2,126        1,895        1,679        1,570        1,546        1,532
 
                                                            SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Spending under current law:
    Budget authority.........................................          364            0            0            0            0            0            0
    Estimated outlays \2\....................................       18,366       18,595       18,853       19,242       19,670       20,215       20,755
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization level............................            0          190          182          382          382          432          482
    Estimated outlays \3\....................................            0          532        2,184        2,904        2,938        2,841        2,884
Spending under S. 1173:
    Estimated authorization level............................          364          190          182          382          382          432          482
    Estimated outlays........................................       18,366       19,127       21,037       22,146       22,607       23,056       23,639
 

[[Page S10841]]

 
                                                                   CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues \4\.......................................            0           -1           -3           -9          -16          -22          -28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount of contract authority provided under ISTEA. The 1998-2003 levels are the amounts included in CBO's March 1997 baseline,
  which assumes annual increases for anticipated inflation.
\2\ Outlays from the mandatory contract authority for programs that are subject to annual obligation limitations, and from discretionary appropriations.
\3\ Outlays from new authorizations in addition to the programs subject to annual obligation limitations.
\4\ Minus signs denote a loss of revenue.

       CBO estimates that spending under the bill would total 
     about $142 billion over the 1998-2003 period. Of that amount, 
     $131.6 billion would be discretionary outlays and $10.3 
     billion would be direct spending. Of the $131.6 billion in 
     total estimated outlays subject to appropriation, about $129 
     billion would come from contract authority, and $2.6 billion 
     would come from amounts authorized to be appropriated by S. 
     1173 or already appropriated in prior years. Under the CBO 
     baseline, direct spending outlays would total $8.3 billion 
     over the 1998-2003 period (about $2 billion less than the 
     six-year total for S. 1173), and discretionary outlays from 
     contract authority would total about $117 billion over the 
     same period (approximately $12 billion less than under S. 
     1173). The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
     function 400 (transportation).
       Enacting S. 1173 would also affect revenues. The Joint 
     Committee on Taxation estimates that the new credit program 
     would increase tax-exempt debt, resulting in a loss of 
     revenues to the federal government totaling $79 million over 
     the 1998-2003 period.

                           Basis of estimate

       Enacting S. 1173 would affect direct spending, spending 
     subject to appropriation, and revenues. In particular, the 
     bill would provide $145.3 billion in contract authority, 
     which is a form of direct spending, for the Federal-Aid 
     Highways program. Most of the outlays from this contract 
     authority would be controlled by annual obligation 
     limitations imposed through the appropriation process. All of 
     the projected outlays controlled by appropriation action, 
     whether from appropriated budget authority or annually 
     limited contract authority, are shown in the table under 
     ``Spending Subject to Appropriation.'' Because a portion of 
     the new minimum guarantee program would be exempt from 
     obligation limitations, some of the outlays for that program 
     as well as all of the outlays for other exempt programs are 
     included in the table under ``Direct Spending.''
       Direct spending
       S. 1173 would authorize funding for a new Federal-Aid 
     Highways activity that would be partly exempt from obligation 
     limitations--the minimum guarantee program. Under this bill, 
     a portion of the minimum guarantee spending would be subject 
     to annual obligation limitations and the remainder would be 
     exempt. Outlays from the exempt portion of the minimum 
     guarantee program would be direct spending.
       Under the baseline, CBO assumes continued funding for the 
     minimum allocation program (which would be replaced by 
     minimum guarantee funding), one of the exempt programs under 
     current law. Based on projections from the FHWA that CBO used 
     in its March 1997 baseline, the estimated funding for minimum 
     allocation would be $4.1 billion over the 1998-2003 period--
     $639 million for 1998, $654 million for 1999, $670 million in 
     2000, $687 million in 2001, $704 million in 2002, and $721 
     million in 2003.
       Under the formula contained in S. 1173, we expect that the 
     minimum guarantee program would cost more than the minimum 
     allocation program. CBO assumes that this new program would 
     have the same obligation rates and outlay rates as assumed 
     for minimum allocation. Based on FHWA projections, CBO 
     estimates that funding for the portion of the minimum 
     guarantee program that would be exempt from obligation 
     limitations would total $5.7 billion over six years--$896 
     million in 1998, $898 million in 1999, $909 million in 2000, 
     $926 million in 2001, $991 million in 2002, and $1,096 
     million in 2003.
       The emergency relief program, the other Federal-Aid 
     activity under current law that is exempt from obligation 
     limitations, is permanently authorized. S. 1173 would not 
     change the emergency relief program, which receives $100 
     million each year.
       For the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge project, S. 1173 
     would provide contract authority of $100 million a year for 
     1998 and 1999, $125 million in 2000, $175 million in 2001, 
     and $200 million a year for 2002 and 2003. The bill would 
     exempt that spending from obligation limitations, so outlays 
     relating to the bridge project would be direct spending. CBO 
     estimates that outlays for the bridge project would total 
     about $640 million over the 1998-2003 period.
       The contract authority authorized for transportation 
     infrastructure finance and innovation credit would also be 
     exempt from obligation limitations. CBO estimates that the 
     outlays for this new credit activity would total about $470 
     million over the 1998-2003 period. The authorized funding for 
     the new credit program is assumed to be for the costs of the 
     subsidies to support the direct loans and loan guarantees 
     that would be provided under the bill. CBO estimates the 
     subsidy amount provided for each year would be spent over a 
     two-year period. (Subsidy outlays are recorded in the year 
     that loans are disbursed; we assume that loans obligated or 
     guaranteed under S. 1173 would be disbursed--on average--over 
     two years.)
       Spending subject to appropriation
       For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts 
     authorized for highway programs would be appropriated by or 
     near the start of each fiscal year. Outlay estimates for all 
     of the spending subject to appropriation are based on 
     historical spending rates for the affected FHWA and NHTSA 
     programs. Because most of the outlays from contract authority 
     are governed by obligation limitations in appropriation acts, 
     they are discretionary and so are included in the table as 
     estimated outlays subject to appropriation. To estimate such 
     outlays, CBO used the obligation limitations specified in the 
     bill.
       One of the new programs that would be controlled by 
     Federal-Aid obligation limitations is safety belt incentive 
     grants. A provision in the bill would require the Secretary 
     of Transportation to calculate the budgetary savings relating 
     to federal medical costs, including savings in the Medicare 
     and Medicaid programs attributable to increased seat belt 
     usage, and distribute that savings to the states that had 
     caused those budgetary savings. CBO estimates that there 
     would be no significant budgetary savings from this provision 
     because the likelihood that the provisions of the bill would 
     increase seat belt usage significantly is small and the 
     impact of any change in seat belt usage on Medicare and 
     Medicaid spending would likely be negligible and difficult to 
     identify. CBO assumes that states would only receive the 
     authorized amounts in the bill with no additional funds from 
     budgetary savings.
       S. 1173 would give states some additional flexibility in 
     the use of their Federal-Aid Highways dollars, especially 
     funds for the National Highway System (NHS), and the Surface 
     Transportation Program (STP). The bill would give states the 
     ability to put a significant portion of their Federal-Aid 
     Highways dollars in a state infrastructure bank (SIB). Under 
     the bill, a SIB is an infrastructure investment fund that 
     could be created at the state or local level to make loans 
     and provide other forms of financial assistance to surface 
     transportation projects. In addition, a SIB could enhance 
     credit, serve as a capital reserve, subsidize interest rates, 
     ensure letters of credit, and provide security for debt 
     financing. The bill includes language ensuring that the 
     federal disbursements to SIBs do not exceed more than 20 
     percent of the total federal funds obligated annually for 
     such purposes.
       S. 1173 would give states the flexibility to use NHS and 
     STP funds for capital improvements for Amtrak or a publicly 
     owned passenger line, publicly owned intracity or intercity 
     passenger rail or bus terminals, capital improvements for 
     intelligent transportation systems, and publicly owned 
     magnetic levitation projects. Given this additional 
     flexibility, outlays could occur at faster rates for the 
     Federal-Aid Highways program than assumed in the CBO 
     baseline. The outlay pattern assumed for the Federal-Aid 
     program is rather slow, with outlays for each year's 
     obligations spent over nine years because of the significant 
     amount of capital expenditures within the program. If a 
     significant number of states were to spend a large portion of 
     their Federal-Aid Highways funds on Amtrak or other passenger 
     rail expenditures, magnetic levitation projects, or other 
     nontraditional Federal-Aid expenditures, the funds would be 
     spent more quickly than under the traditional program 
     structure.
       S. 1173 would authorize the appropriation of $2.1 billion 
     over the 1998-2003 period for new highway programs. The bill 
     would authorize appropriations over the six-year period 
     totaling $750 million for grants to states for trade corridor 
     and border crossing grants, $300 million for the joint 
     partnership for advanced vehicles program, $30 million for 
     the transportation and environmental cooperative, and $20 
     million for developing and maintaining a reporting system for 
     excise taxes on motor fuels. In addition, the bill would 
     authorize a total appropriation of $950 million for 
     magnetic levitation grants from 2000 through 2003.
       S. 1173 would require the FHWA to conduct studies and 
     publish subsequent reports. It would require the Secretary of 
     Transportation to report on the extent and use by states of 
     uniformed police officers on Federal-Aid Highway construction 
     projects. It would also require the Secretary to report 
     annually on the rates of obligation of funds apportioned 
     under the Federal-Aid Highway program. A third provision 
     would direct the Secretary to submit a report on the 
     activities and results of the new federal credit assistance 
     activity under the bill. Based on information from the FHWA, 
     CBO estimates that the cost of completing the studies and 
     preparing the reports would be less than

[[Page S10842]]

     $100,000 per year. In addition, the bill would require the 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) to complete three highway 
     studies and subsequently publish reports. According to GAO, 
     the cost of completing these studies and reports would not be 
     significant.
       Revenues
       Subtitle C, Chapter 2 of S. 1173 provides for a federal 
     credit program for such facilities as border crossings, 
     multistate trade corridors, intermodal facilities, toll roads 
     and other facilities that generate their own revenue streams 
     through user charges. The credit program, which is intended 
     to complement other funding and to leverage private co-
     investment, could include secured loans, loan guarantees, and 
     lines of credit, up to a maximum amount of credit ranging 
     from $1.2 billion in 1998 to $2.0 billion in 2003. That 
     program could leverage new issues of tax-exempt bonds and 
     result in a net increase in the volume of outstanding tax-
     exempt debt. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 
     this program would result in revenue losses totaling $79 
     million over the 1998-2003 period.

                      Pay-as-you-go considerations

       Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
     legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. CBO's 
     estimate of the bill's impact on outlays from direct spending 
     is summarized in the following table for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2007. The table also contains estimates of changes in 
     revenues (governmental receipts) provided by the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation. For purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-
     go procedures, only the effects in the budget year and the 
     succeeding four years are counted. Also, only direct spending 
     outlays are subject to pay-as-you-go requirements; the 
     discretionary outlays from contract authority subject to 
     obligation limitations are not included as pay-as-you-go 
     effects because those outlays are controlled by appropriation 
     acts.

                                                   SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..................................        73       245       333       407       482       552       517       384       361       336
Changes in receipts.................................        -1        -3        -9       -16       -22       -28       -34       -40       -46       -51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Intergovernmental and private-sector impact

       S. 1173 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on 
     state, local, or tribal governments except as a condition of 
     receiving federal assistance or participating in a voluntary 
     federal program. Most of funding authorized in this bill 
     would be redistributed to states in the form of grants for 
     transportation purposes.
       Estimate prepaid by:
       Federal Costs: Clare Doherty;
       Federal Revenues: Pearl Richardson;
       Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Government: Marc Nicole.
       Estimate approved by:
       Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
     Analysis.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 1997.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you requested, we are providing the 
     following information on the minimum allocation program, one 
     of the components of the Federal-Aid Highways program that is 
     exempt from annual obligation limitations. The minimum 
     allocation program is funded under section 157 of Title 23, 
     United States Code. Based on information from the Federal 
     Highway Administration, we included the following amounts of 
     mandatory budget authority for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 
     in CBO's March 1997 baseline, which underlies the 1998 budget 
     resolution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                               -----------------------------------------
                                 1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated budget authority....    639    654    670    687    704    721
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The funding level for 1997 was $603 million.
       If you wish further details, we will be pleased to provide 
     them. The CBO staff contact is Clare Doherty.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 1296 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as a member of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works for nigh on to 21 years now, I rise with a 
great sense of pleasure and even pride at what our committee has done 
in the legislation before you, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1997, known informally as ISTEA II. It is a work of 
great complexity, yet clarity of principle. It is a tribute to our 
chairman, Senator Chafee, to his distinguished and wholly informed, 
carefully attentive ranking member, Senator Max Baucus of Montana. One 
would not wish to overlook the work of Senator John Warner of Virginia, 
whose subcommittee had to produce this measure. Nine months ago--and 
this might be an augury for many of the matters that remain for the 
Senate in this session--9 months ago it was thought that this bill 
would bring about some of the fiercest interregional battles of this 
time in our national life. And, yet, to the amazement of all and to the 
very great credit of the managers of the bill, it was reported out of 
committee unanimously. The committee has a long-standing tradition of 
bipartisanship, which is always challenged when the elemental and 
legitimate interests of different regions, and different States, come 
into play. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the authors 
of the bill chose to give it the same name, the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, which we gave to the bill in 1991, ISTEA 
I, if you like. Robert A. Roe of New Jersey, then chairman of the House 
Public Works Committee and a public servant of the highest capacity, 
and I, as the person charged with the task in the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, developed principles for the first 
highway bill to mark the post-Interstate era. And here I would like to 
make a point to which I will return at the conclusion of my remarks

  The point is, Mr. President, that the Department of Transportation in 
1990-91 faced the unavoidable fact that the Interstate and Defense 
Highway System, the Eisenhower Interstate System, as it was named at 
the behest of our beloved John Heinz, was finished. It was built, and 
they could think of no other thing, no better move, no different task, 
than to build another.
  I think the distinguished managers will recall, as I will not forget, 
the occasion on which we were summoned to an event in the auditorium at 
the Executive Office Building. President Bush came, and stood on the 
stage by a great map of the United States with white background and red 
lines, just moving here and there, up and down, right, left. I thought, 
``Oh, my Heaven, is this the new interstate map?'' However, I was 
reassured finally by the then Secretary of Transportation, that no, 
these were just illustrative lines drawn, presumptively for aesthetic 
effect, as might be an abstract expressionist painting exhibited in New 
York's Museum of Modern Art in the 1980's. They had no idea what to do 
and had no instinct, save to go on doing what they had done.
  Congress thought differently. Congress chose, in a cooperative mode, 
to devise the first post-Interstate era transportation program for the 
country.
  The Interstate System was a long time in the making, Mr. President. 
It began as a concept at the 1939 World's Fair. I may be one of the 
only Members of the body who went to that fair, which was in Flushing 
Meadows in

[[Page S10843]]

Queens, NY. The General Motors Co., had an exhibit which was the great 
sensation and joy of the fair. It was called ``Futurama.''
  Under a great plexidome, it showed a map of a portion of the United 
States with Chevrolets and Buicks driving steadily through these great 
divided highways with cloverleaf intersections, passing through 
mountains, stopping, in one instance, at the 40th floor, as I recall, 
of the Empire State Building. It was just a huge success as displays 
go.
  In 1944, President Roosevelt, having in mind the possibility that the 
Depression of the 1930's would return at the end of the Second World 
War--this was a widely held belief--had Congress authorize an 
interstate highway system to be built when the war was over and peace 
resumed.
  This was done. The Interstate System was authorized. No funds were 
made available. Then President Eisenhower came to office. One of the 
current ideas was the creation of an Interstate system. He appointed a 
commission to look into it, because this had a particular hold on his 
personal experience.
  His first command in 1919 had been to assume that enemy action had 
destroyed the national railroad system, and he was to take a convoy of 
military trucks from Fort Meade, on the outskirts of Washington, to the 
Presidio in California. He got there, but it was a tale to tell, and he 
would tell it. It is a wonderful passage in a book he put out, 
``Stories I Like To Tell.''
  He crossed the Mississippi River to the Pacific. He averaged about 4 
miles an hour. That wouldn't do if, indeed, there was a military 
emergency. And so the Interstate System became the Interstate Defense 
System. A dedicated gasoline tax was imposed--this was very much the 
work of Jim Wright of Texas--and we began the largest engineering 
public works project in the history of the world.
  Indeed, we had already begun it in New York State where Governor 
Dewey, in 1946, simply took it upon himself to build such a road with 
funding from the sales of bonds. He built this road from the outskirts 
of New York City across the path of the New York Central Railroad and 
the Erie Canal to Buffalo and down to Pennsylvania. It is called the 
New York State Thruway. And the inspired civil engineer who built it, 
Bertram Tallamy, was asked down by the Eisenhower administration to 
take over the small Bureau of Public Roads in the Department of 
Commerce to build this national system. Previously, the Bureau of 
Public Roads managed a very small Federal program, mostly involved with 
what we call farm-to-market roads for rural areas.

  The Interstate System was a vast success, in many ways too much of a 
success. It changed the outlay of the American economy, the regions, 
the regional distribution. Cities emptied out, suburbs grew up, 
factories moved, and a great change took place in our system. The use 
of automobiles doubled, and then redoubled. The time came, however, 
when this Interstate System, which really was a misnomer because most 
of the expanse was in and around cities, was finished and the time had 
come to do something more.
  The new legislation in 1991 established the principle of a balanced 
national transportation investment policy, an intermodal policy to 
improve mobility and access to jobs. Because as jobs left the inner 
cities all over our country, there was no public transportation 
available to people who didn't have automobiles.
  It provided for environmental protection. Sometime in the 1970's, we 
began to notice the phenomenon of air pollution in our cities. A 
scientist at the University of California identified the process by 
which smog is formed. Air quality became a genuine and urgent issue. We 
said we would look at the environment generally and see to it that 
local communities participated in decisions affecting their 
environment.
  This, Mr. President, sounds like a routine statement. But before 
ISTEA, participation by local communities was not a routine event for 
our National Highway Program. These plans were drawn up in Washington 
and administered from highway departments in State capitals. Local 
governments had little or no say. The money, the 90-10 money, the 95-5 
money, could scarcely be resisted and decisions were centralized at the 
State level in a way that would surprise many who began the program.
  If you would like to see an example of devolution, look to what our 
committee has done in these two bills in moving decisionmaking from the 
States to regional and local groups. In the hearings that have been 
held all over the country, there has been, as I understand, very strong 
endorsement of this legislation on this ground.
  A hearing held at the Alexander Hamilton Custom House in Bowling 
Green, NY, by Senator Warner brought the Governor of New Jersey, the 
Governor of New York, the mayor of New York City, persons from the 
surrounding counties in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York to say 
this has been a revelation to us that we could have something to say in 
the expenditure of Federal moneys. Federal funds didn't just have to go 
for another highway, there was something called efficiency involved.
  We would say in 1991 that there is no such thing as a free lunch and 
there is no such thing as a free way. We have to introduce pricing 
principles where the users of the highways pay tolls, varied by hour of 
the day or night. Electronics could be introduced to efficiently do 
that.
  At the time of the 1991 legislation, at the Triborough Bridge in New 
York, which had been opened in time for the 1939 World's Fair, there 
still were men, now women as well, standing at toll booths collecting 
tolls. Sixty years had gone by and not a bit of productivity had been 
introduced into the system. Today, you go through with something called 
EZ Pass, which electronically collects the toll, and it has quite 
transformed the system.
  We talked about air quality. We talked about efficiency. We talked 
about the need to maintain existing infrastructure, and we have been 
successful. The present bill before you, ISTEA II, contains those 
principles, reasserts them and will continue them.

  The bill does another important thing, and more important to some 
States than to others. The 1991 legislation provided that States that 
had built highways that were contributed to the Interstate System would 
be reimbursed for the expense. This was clearly contemplated by the 
original authors of the Eisenhower legislation--a committee headed by 
Gen. Lucius D. Clay. The bill before you continues that principle by 
including the interstate reimbursement program in the base amounts paid 
to States under the new formulas.
  This is especially important to New York State, which was authorized 
to obtain $5 billion over the course of 15 years, and has already 
received some $600 million. The installments are about a third of a 
billion each year.
  There are other important problems yet to be resolved. There is an 
issue of the transit title of our bill. Transit is one aspect of 
national legislation in which one region will be very much more 
involved than in others.
  For example, a third of the transit rides in the United States are in 
the New York region. Yet we receive only 18 percent of the funds, 
despite having twice that much transit ridership. On balance, we do not 
get much in the way of flood plain protection. Our agricultural 
subsidies are minimal. Our defense outlays are almost nonexistent. 
Transit is one of the key Federal programs that addresses New York's 
needs.
  We are a big nation, and not every part is exactly like another part. 
I see the brilliant chairman of our committee has returned. I want to 
tell him how grateful I am to him. But I say that if the transit 
formulas in this bill become radically different from those which 
existed for many, many years, then it will be difficult for any number 
of us to support the final legislation. This need not happen, and it 
should not.
  We have a bill here before us from a unanimous committee that can 
really solidify an enormous and important change. We are talking about 
transportation policy for the next century. It is not going to be good 
enough just to go on building those superhighways of this century.
  One of the measures that inspired us in 1991 was a report by a 
committee that had been established by the State of Florida to look 
into what would it

[[Page S10844]]

require to accommodate the automobile traffic from Miami to the Disney 
complex in northern Florida by the year 2020. The report said it would 
require 40 lanes of interstate highway. Well, you keep that up and 
there is nothing left of Florida. You have to do better, and you have 
to think differently than in the past. Today we must increase 
innovation and investment in infrastructure, while including the 
absolutely essential Federal labor protections that are written into 
law today and have been, in some cases, for 60 years.
  Here, Mr. President, I have one final thing I would like to say. I do 
not find any pleasure in it, but from time to time such statements are 
necessary. I am not sure that the Department of Transportation is able 
to think differently. It is an organization created with one program to 
administer, and that one program having concluded, it seems incapable 
of doing anything else.
  As I said at the outset, in 1990, having completed the Interstate 
System, the only thing the Department of Transportation could think to 
do, was to build another. In our legislation in 1991, without meaning 
to be particularly partisan, we provided $725 million to build some 
prototype magnetic levitation trains and other intelligent 
transportation systems to get us past the point of a highway automobile 
driver.
  Magnetic levitation--it is the most important scientific idea in the 
history of ground transportation since the wheel. It is the first mode 
of transportation since persons got up on their hind feet, you might 
say, which does not depend on friction. It is a frictionless mode of 
ground transportation. The simple principles are magnets which lift a 
vehicle and moves it as if it were flying on the rails.

  The idea, sir, was invented on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, which 
connects Long Island with the mainland, by a young nuclear engineer, 
still thriving, working at the Brookhaven Laboratory, who was going 
back to MIT. As you can do only when you are a nuclear engineer and you 
are 26 years old, he thought up maglev, between the time he got on the 
bridge and the time he got off. A colleague patented it the other day.
  I do not assert that it is the necessary new mode of transportation 
within city regions or in densely populated corridors. But I do say, 
sir, that they have a train running in Japan now that just broke some 
new speed records.
  By pure chance, this morning I received an invitation to the opening 
of the German system this next spring. It was in this morning's mail. I 
have been on that system. I believe our distinguished chairman has also 
been there. In Germany, for what it is worth, they have decided to no 
longer have intracountry air service. They will move by new high-speed 
technology such as this.
  Sir, in the 6 years since ISTEA, the DOT did nothing, or nothing that 
I know of--and I will be very pleased to retract these remarks if they 
are inaccurate--to advance maglev. They pour concrete, or rather they 
know the contractors that pour the concrete for them. When an 
institution gets so fixed on one mission that it cannot adapt to a new 
challenge, to a new time, some of my radical friends in this body, and 
perhaps most especially in the other body, ought to ask whether that 
institution is really necessary. Under the legislation as written, this 
program could be run from an office of perhaps 10 people in the Office 
of Management and Budget, or what you will.
  In the present legislation, the chairman, the ranking member, and 
Senator Warner, also said: We will give another try. And $30 million 
has been provided for the program. And another $920 million is 
authorized. It could be done.
  We are entitled to hear from the Secretary of Transportation whether 
he intends to try? Does he have anybody in the employ of the Department 
who knows what the Congress is proposing? Is there any explanation why 
no effort was made to spend the money previously provided for maglev? 
You know, organizations go brain dead, sir, in the history of the 
world, in the history of governments that cannot adapt to new 
circumstances.
  I hope that the Department of Transportation would hear what was 
said. In that first legislation, we wrote at the outset a set of 
principles about efficiency, adaptability, local involvement, 
intermodalism because it seemed necessary. It was stipulated in law, 
black and white law, that these principles should be printed and every 
member of the Department of Transportation be given a copy. It was 
stipulated in law, black and white law, that the principles be printed 
in larger form and posted in every office of the Department. But I wish 
I could say there has been more of a response.
  I hope I have not done an injustice to individuals in the Department 
who have tried. But in fact, sir, we have little to show. And that is 
not good enough. I do not think it is good enough for the managers or 
for the Congress. They have done their work. Congress will have made 
this law. It is now for the Executive to see that the law is faithfully 
executed.
  We have had a good beginning. But we are no way at the conclusion. We 
are not as far as we had hoped to be, but this continues us in the 
direction we set out in. I can only once again congratulate the 
esteemed Senator from Rhode Island, his colleague from Montana, and our 
colleague from Virginia. They have brought to the Senate floor a bill 
with the unanimous support of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works. What 9 months ago seemed something not possible, surely not 
probable, has now been done. It is an effort that should be 
acknowledged, praised and rewarded.
  If I may speak just briefly in the colloquial, there is an old saying 
which, translated from the Gaelic, says, ``If you want an audience, 
start a fight.'' Well, yes, true enough. But if you want legislation, 
find unanimity, find consensus.

  The managers have done this. I just want to congratulate them once 
more. I know I shall have the opportunity when the final bill comes to 
the floor.
  I ask that the principles of the 1997 legislation as printed be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

House Report 102-404--Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991

                           *   *   *   *   *


     DECLARATION OF POLICY: INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   EFFICIENCY ACT.

       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.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall include 
     a National Highway System which consists of the National 
     System of Interstate and Defense Highways and those principal 
     arterial roads which are essential for interstate and 
     regional commerce and travel, national defense, intermodal 
     transfer facilities, and international commerce and border 
     crossings.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall include 
     significant improvements in public transportation necessary 
     to achieve national goals for improved air quality, energy 
     conservation, international competitiveness, and mobility for 
     elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and economically 
     disadvantaged persons in urban and rural areas of the 
     country.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall provide 
     improved access to ports and airports, the Nation's link to 
     world commerce.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall give 
     special emphasis to the contributions of the transportation 
     sectors to increased productivity growth. Social benefits 
     must be considered with particular attention to the external 
     benefits of reduced air pollution, reduced traffic congestion 
     and other aspects of the quality of life in the United 
     States.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System must be 
     operated and maintained with insistent attention to the 
     concepts of innovation, competition, energy efficiency, 
     productivity, growth, and accountability. Practices that 
     resulted in the lengthy and overly costly construction of the 
     Interstate and Defense Highway System must be confronted and 
     ceased.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System shall be 
     adapted to ``intelligent vehicles'', ``magnetic levitation 
     systems'', and other new technologies wherever feasible and 
     economical, with benefit cost estimates given special 
     emphasis concerning safety considerations and techniques for 
     cost allocation.

[[Page S10845]]

       The National Intermodal Transportation System, where 
     appropriate, will be financed, as regards Federal 
     apportionments and reimbursements, by the Highway Trust Fund. 
     Financial assistance will be provided to State and local 
     governments and their instrumentalities to help implement 
     national goals relating to mobility for elderly persons, 
     persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged 
     persons.
       The National Intermodal Transportation System must be the 
     centerpiece of a national investment commitment to create the 
     new wealth of the Nation for the 21st century.
       The Secretary shall distribute copies of the Declaration of 
     Policy to each employee of the Department of Transportation 
     and shall ensure that such Declaration of Policy is posted in 
     all offices of the Department of Transportation.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished senior 
Senator from New York for his very fine comments. Coming from him they 
mean a lot. As we all know, he was the principal author of the bill 
that emerged from the conference in 1997, the so-called ISTEA 
legislation. It is due, principally, to Senator Moynihan, that that 
bill came out as it did. All of us were there. The Senator from Montana 
and I and others were there during those negotiations. The Senator from 
New York was not the chairman of that conference, the chairman was the 
Representative from New Jersey, Mr. Roe. But the chairman of the Senate 
in the conference was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee at that time, the Senator from New York.
  Out of that came a bill that I think has been a model. I have always 
said it and I will say it again that the principal credit for doing 
that, achieving that, was what the Senator from New York did.
  Regarding the magnetic levitation, I agree with him, the Senator from 
New York. Based upon his urgings, I went over to Bremen, Germany, to 
see the magnetic levitation demonstration tracks. It is about a 10-mile 
track that is in the form of a figure 8. We attained at that time 
speeds of over 300 miles an hour with a cruising speed of 240 miles an 
hour. It was so calm you could rest a glass of water on the table or 
you could write a letter with ease.
  As the Senator from New York mentioned, there were considerable sums 
in the ISTEA legislation, but those sums, as I recall, were not spent 
but were taken back by the appropriators over the years. So we have $30 
million more from that in here. From that, we believe the Department of 
Transportation can arrive at the site. We ought to try one of these. 
Where it will be, I don't know. It could well be in Texas or Florida, 
moving vast amounts of people back and forth in some fashion wherever 
it might be. I am sure it will not be in the State of Rhode Island, but 
I am for it. And I am not necessarily saying we have to develop new 
technology. I think the Germans have developed some outstanding 
technology. I have not seen the one in Japan.
  I think we ought to get on with it and see how it works in this 
country and see not only if the construction costs can be amortized but 
the operating costs, likewise.
  Again, I thank the splendid Senator from New York for his comments 
and appreciate the support he has given this legislation from the word 
go.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join my colleague and chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee in recognizing and praising the 
intelligence and the vision of the senior Senator from New York. I 
think I can state without reservation and categorically that the 
Senator from New York is the most interesting Senator in the U.S. 
Senate. He is most interesting not because he makes outrageous 
statements but for a lot of reasons. One is his historical knowledge. 
The Senator from New York has a deeper historical knowledge of many 
facets, whether it is American history, world history, technical 
history----
  Mr. CHAFEE. Architectural history.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Than anyone else in this entity. Very often he draws upon 
his vast reservoir to enlighten us and remind us of something that 
happened in the past and how it is relevant to what we are attempting 
to do in the future.
  He is also most interesting because he is, I think, the most 
profound. He comes up with more new ideas, has a broader perspective on 
what is happening, which enables him to approach a subject from more 
angles, more ways, and he thinks more outside the box, if you will.
  There are many examples of that but one that comes to mind is what he 
did in the last ISTEA bill, focusing on intermodality, a big word but 
very important concept. Not just building concrete highways but all the 
various ways that transportation has to and should be connected.
  For example, the Senator will remember we had a field hearing in New 
York. I flew up to New York on an airplane. I didn't drive. I took a 
water taxi in the Delta terminal over to some pier in New York and then 
a taxi over to where the hearing was located. The point is that States, 
under the vision of the Senator from New York, can spend ISTEA dollars 
on a Delta water taxi. That is permissible. I don't know whether any 
dollars were spent, maybe, but they can be.
  In addition, in our bill we give States added flexibility. Our bill 
allows States to spend money on Amtrak if they choose. In some States, 
Amtrak is a lot more important, or in parts of some States Amtrak it is 
more important than others.
  The intermodality, that flexibility, is made available here, to say 
nothing of spending money on transit. Highway dollars can be spent on 
mass transit. We don't have much mass transit in my State of Montana, 
but certainly in the State of New York and other States transit is 
very, very important. Bus lines, bike paths, you name it, States have a 
lot more flexibility and there are many more uses on the various 
components of transportation that make up the totality 
of transportation instead of just highways.

  Again, that was a vision of the Senator from New York that put in 
place that concept 6 years ago and is continued and improved upon in 
this bill. That is why we named it ISTEA II, and the next one, I am 
sure, will be ISTEA III.
  There is no Senator who, as I said, is more interesting and can 
contribute more than the Senator from New York. We deeply appreciate 
it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is curious that both the Senator from 
Montana and I serve on the Finance Committee, likewise on the 
Environment Committee with the Senator from New York. So I have served 
with the Senator from New York for some 21 years on this committee and 
18 years or so on the Finance Committee. And then we both were on the 
Intelligence Committee back and forth at different times. The Senator 
from Montana has been on the Finance Committee, likewise, 15, 16 years 
or so. So I have always felt, Mr. President, because of serving on 
those committees with the Senator from New York that I received a 
Harvard education without having to pay for it, and it has been worth 
it.
  I know the story the Senator has told about then, I believe, Second 
Lieutenant Eisenhower leading a convoy across the country. I think it 
took about 40 days. And from that, as the Senator from New York pointed 
out, came this inspiration for the then Lieutenant Eisenhower, later 
General Eisenhower, and then President Eisenhower, that we ought to 
build superhighways to get across this Nation.
  So I echo what the Senator from Montana says. It has really been a 
pleasure to work with the Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am beyond words but not beyond gratitude. I could not 
thank my colleagues enough.
  Mr. CHAFEE. On a separate subject, Mr. President, I know there are 
efforts made to get cosponsors on the so-called Byrd-Warner-Baucus, et 
al., amendment.
  I say to my colleagues that might be listening, we have not seen that 
yet. That has not emerged. I hope people would go slow on cosponsorship 
of measures such as that because Senator Domenici and I have an 
approach that we think is a very good one and we want to make sure that 
people just don't get committed in advance, particularly on a measure 
they have not even seen yet.
  I believe I am correct in saying that the Senator from Montana, that 
measure which was discussed on Thursday a week ago, in other words, 
something like the 9th of October and was imminent, has not yet 
appeared, am I correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, I will enthusiastically 
describe the contents of the amendment so Senators know what it is.

[[Page S10846]]

  The amendment, it is true, has not been finalized in its final form 
but it certainly will be very quickly, and I might say to my good 
friend from Rhode Island, it is a very good amendment because it is an 
amendment which does not take money from other programs, as has been 
said by opponents. It is an amendment that does not require any 
additional spending, a claim sometimes made by its opponents.
  I might also say that the proposed amendment to be offered apparently 
by the Senator from New Mexico to be cosponsored by the Senator from 
Rhode Island which is an amendment that I think will cause much more 
mischief than is currently realized because under that amendment it 
gives vast additional powers to the Budget Committee above which that 
committee now has which would necessarily take it away from the 
authorizing committees.
  In addition, that amendment the Senator described in conjunction with 
the Senator from New Mexico would also be very mischievous because it 
would require reauthorizing committees to go back and at least go to 
conference with the House every year on the highway bill, which would 
be the cause of all kinds of disruption.
  I urge Senators to be very careful and not be taken in by the 
language of that amendment.
  Again, the amendment we will provide will not mandate additional 
spending this year or any other year and will not take dollars from any 
other program that are important to people. It only says if there are 
savings next year beyond those provided for by the budget resolution, 
and if there is discretion of the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee that those committees want to spend on 
highway, that is their discretion. I think the Senators will find it is 
a very good amendment and it is good for the country.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the point I was making is on October 9, 
Thursday, before we left here, we were promised that this amendment was 
imminent. As a matter of fact, I thought I would be handed a copy then. 
But now, 11 days have gone by and we still have not seen the amendment.
  All I am saying to my colleagues is, just be cautious before leaping 
on as cosponsors of something that no one has seen yet. I don't know 
what the problem is, the hold up in this piece of legislation is, but 
all I know, it is not here yet, and while the prediction is it will be 
soon, all I can say is that is exactly what was said 11 days ago, and 
despite the time off that staffs and others had during the recess, 
nothing has emerged.
  I ask my colleagues to just hold their fire and keep their ammunition 
dry and let's see what the different proposals are that are inside 
here, including the one which I wouldn't characterize in the same 
fashion as the Senator from Montana did, namely, the Domenici 
amendment, which I will be part of.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________