[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.
____________________