[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11029-S11032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ISTEA

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been waiting all week to talk about 
some very, very important things in the highway and transportation 
reauthorization bill, also known as ISTEA or NEXTEA. I am disappointed 
we have been unable to move to that bill because I think everyone here 
can agree we have journeyed far in the transportation area not only 
over the last 6 years under the just-expired ISTEA bill but over the 
last century. We are ready to embark upon the next leg of that journey. 
I am very distressed and saddened that our colleagues are not willing 
to move forward on it.
  I think everyone in this body and certainly most of our constituents 
around the country know the importance and the role that transportation 
plays in our everyday lives and especially in our economy. Our economic 
stability and progress is tied directly to transportation.
  In my opinion, what really worked, what really got us moving on 
transportation infrastructure in this Nation was President Dwight 
Eisenhower's vision of an interstate system. That succeeded in building 
the first network of modern high-speed roads linking our States with 
each other and with markets around the world.
  As my dear friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, often 
says, this is one world market. Our country's transportation 
infrastructure makes it so.
  Mr. President, my home State of Missouri has always been a leader in 
the

[[Page S11030]]

area of transportation. As one example, the first construction contract 
awarded under the interstate system was awarded for part of Interstate 
70 near St. Charles, MO. In fact, the first three contracts awarded 
under this system were Missouri contracts. I think this demonstrates 
one more time Missouri's fundamental commitment to and belief in 
essential infrastructure.
  Even though my friend and colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, 
and I had some differences of opinion during the 1991 debate, I do 
agree with many of my colleagues when they give Senator Moynihan and 
the 1997 ISTEA bill credit for moving our transportation policy 
forward. The 1991 bill was landmark legislation that enabled us to 
craft a new generation of highway and transit programs.
  Now, let us all recognize that transportation in this country 
includes everything from transit systems, rail, waterways, air, 
pipelines, et cetera. However, as we move forward, we must build our 
new policy solidly on our commitment to the concrete and asphalt 
reality that roads and bridges are, and will continue to be the 
foundation of our transportation system. The new policy will be only as 
good as the foundation on which it is built.
  This country has an inadequate highway infrastructure that 
contributes to 114 deaths on our Nation's highways each day. This is 
the equivalent of a major airline disaster each and every day of the 
year. And, tragically, many of these fatalities are our Nation's 
children. As a matter of fact, motor vehicle accidents are the No. 1 
cause of death of American children of all ages. That is truly a 
remarkable and distressing and tragic fact.
  I have to share with you, Mr. President, the fact that Missouri's 
highway fatality rate is above the national average. I was reminded of 
these highway tragedies just this past week during the Columbus Day 
work period in the State, as I have been on every opportunity I have 
had to travel around the State of Missouri. As I went back and forth 
across the State, I saw along the roads the little white crosses that 
had been marked for deaths of motorists and their passengers on 
Missouri's highways. Some of the highways have very, very frequent 
intervals of white crosses. And at every stop where I talked with 
people and listened to them talk about transportation, they told me of 
friends, neighbors, and loved ones who had been lost in highway 
accidents. Almost everyone of us in Missouri have experienced or know 
somebody who has experienced the loss of a loved one or a dear friend. 
Earlier this year, my good friend Gary Dickenson of Chillicothe, MO, 
was driving from Chillicothe toward Kansas City where he had business 
interests, where he traveled frequently on Highway 36, a highway that, 
because of the traffic, should have been a four-lane, divided highway. 
It was, in fact, a two-way, two-lane highway. He met a car driven by a 
stranger to that part of the road who had crossed over the center line 
and he was killed.
  We have had hearings in Missouri where families who have come to 
testify for the needs of highways have told us about the tragedy that 
their families have felt, like the Winkler family in Moberly, and many 
others, who lost a loved one because someone not familiar with that 
highway, not realizing that that heavily traveled road was a two-way 
road rather than a divided highway, crossed the center line and was in 
the wrong lane and crashed head-on into a fatal traffic accident.
  Now, some fatalities on our roads are as a result of drunken driving 
and improper child safety restraints. But it is clear to me that the 
major role in these fatalities is the unsafe condition and inadequate 
capacity of our highways, and we really can't allow this to continue. 
It is totally unacceptable and we have to do something about it. We 
must improve upon our existing infrastructure and we have to determine 
better ways to manage our transportation needs, not only to address the 
tremendous safety needs, but for our economic competitiveness.
  We must not forget that Americans depend upon our transportation 
infrastructure, mainly our roads and bridges, each day, to get to and 
from work, school, the shopping center, doctor appointments, ball 
games, to see friends, and to go to church. But we also know that those 
highways and byways, those roads and those bridges are vitally 
important to maintaining economic prosperity. They take workers to and 
from jobs, and bring goods and supplies into the workplace, and they 
bring the finished products out. And only if they do so in an efficient 
and effective manner can we make sure that our products are competitive 
against the products of other nations in the world.
  Well, the condition of our roads and bridges, once the envy of the 
world, should embarrass all of us. I have listened over the years, and 
just recently on the Senate floor, to my colleagues from Northeastern 
States talking about their transportation needs and how they think they 
are somehow more deserving of additional highway funds than are the 
Southern and Midwestern and the Western States. On this floor, before 
the Columbus Day State work period, a Senator from the Northeast 
alluded to that part of the country as ``the crux of our economic 
mix.''
  Well, Mr. President, I have to disagree and, like my colleagues who 
make those statements, be a little parochial because I argue that the 
crux is the middle part of the country. It is Michigan, it is Missouri, 
it is Iowa, it is Arkansas, it is Illinois, it is Kansas, it is 
Oklahoma, it is Louisiana, it is Minnesota, it is Wisconsin, it is 
Louisiana, it is Mississippi, and Texas. Why, Mr. President? Because 
not only is this the heartland of the country, but in my opinion this 
is where the country's current and future growth will be.
  Now, my State of Missouri is ``geographically privileged'' to be 
located not only near the geographic center of the United States, and 
it not only has the demographic or population center of the United 
States, but it is at the center or at the confluence of our Nation's 
two greatest waterways, the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Not only 
has Missouri proven itself to be the gateway to the West, but today it 
is the gateway to the North, South, East and West. Like spokes from a 
bicycle wheel, Missouri's roads and bridges are fast becoming the 
arteries that feed not only our country's heartland, but the whole of 
North America.
  Already, according to the Federal Highway Administration, Missouri 
has the country's sixth largest highway system. According to the Road 
Information Program, vehicle travel in Missouri grew by 51 percent 
between 1985 and 1995, compared to a national average of 37 percent. It 
is the home of the second and third largest rail hubs, the second 
fastest-growing airport in the world, and the second largest inland 
port in the United States.
  A further example of the dynamic growth in Missouri is Branson, MO, 
population 4,725. I hope my colleagues--and not just those of us who 
enjoy country music--know about Branson, because in 1996 alone, Branson 
was visited by 5.8 million guests. That requires a lot of 
transportation to bring that many people into a community of less than 
5,000 residents.
  In addition, we look at our two largest trading partners, Canada and 
Mexico. One of the main north-south highway routes in this country is 
Interstate 35 from Loredo, TX, through Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, 
Iowa, and Duluth, MN.
  Unfortunately, many coastal States forget about inland States when it 
comes to the global economy. But for our State of Missouri, and many 
other ``inland'' States, our highway infrastructure, coupled with rail, 
air and waterways, makes us strong players in ``our one-world market.''
  Missouri alone serves over 100 different countries around the world 
with our exports. In 1995, our exports exceeded $5.5 billion.
  Not only does Missouri export electronics, machinery, and chemicals, 
but Missouri is one of the largest exporters in the country of 
agricultural products. In overall agricultural exports, Missouri is 
ranked 15th among all 50 States in the value of its agricultural 
exports. Missouri is the sixth largest soybean producer and eighth 
largest feed corn producer in the country. Missouri ranks 6th in rice 
production and 13th in wheat production.
  If we in Missouri are going to continue to compete globally for 
foreign trade opportunities of the next century, not only do 
Missourians need ``fair'' trade to compete, but we need a ``fair'' 
return of our transportation dollars so Missourians have ``fair'' 
access

[[Page S11031]]

to global markets which coastal States now dominate because they 
already enjoy such access. A fair return to Missouri is imperative 
because Missouri's highways and bridges are in tremendous need of more 
dollars--more of our dollars that we have been sending to Washington, 
more of our dollars that we have shared in large measure with other 
States. It used to be, prior to the 1991 act, that we were getting 
about 75 cents back on every dollar we sent to Washington. We got it up 
to 80 cents after 1991. And we are hoping--hoping against hope--that 
maybe we can pass a measure which will get us up to 92 cents, still 
sharing 8 cents of every dollar that we send to Washington with other 
States for their transportation needs.

  Permit me to quote from testimony provided by Tom Boland, a good 
friend and chair of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 
at a field hearing we held in which the chairman of the committee, the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, and the 
Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, were kind enough to participate. 
Mr. Boland said:

       In Missouri, we can demonstrate the need for increased 
     Federal funding to improve the safety of our highways and 
     bridges all too well. Let me take you on a short tour down 
     the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The Missouri River 
     enters the State at our far northwest corner, flows southward 
     to Kansas City, then crosses the entire State and joins the 
     Mississippi River at St. Louis. The Mississippi River forms 
     the entire eastern boundary of Missouri.

  More than 40 bridges on the State and Federal highway system cross 
these two rivers in Missouri. More than half of these bridges are 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete when evaluated by 
Federal criteria. They are too narrow or have severe weight 
restrictions, or both, that prevent commercial vehicle use and obstruct 
the economic vitality of many of our communities.
  Using the Federal Highway Administration rating system, Missouri has 
approximately 11,000 centerline miles of highways rating fair or worse, 
or a lower rate. This is nearly one-third of the total State highway 
system. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project Report, 
81 percent of Missouri's urban highways alone are not in good 
condition. Over 42 percent of Missouri's 23,000 bridges are 
substandard.
  Missouri has transportation needs that need to be met.
  Ever since my arrival in the U.S. Senate, I have worked on 
transportation issues, mainly on getting my State of Missouri a fair 
return on its highway dollars. I will be honest; it has been an uphill 
battle. Even under the bill as reported from the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Missouri, and several others, are still donor States. 
As a member of the committee, I worked with my colleagues, Senators 
Chafee, Warner, and Baucus, to come up with a formula that was fair. 
Again, let me be honest; it is not everything I would like. If I got 
what I wanted, Missouri would be getting a return of $1.72 or $2.15 on 
every dollar they sent in. That is the return that some of the 
Northeastern States are receiving. But Missouri is not receiving that 
much.
  Yet, I am the sponsor of this bill because it has moved the formula 
by leaps and bounds in the right direction, and I believe it is a 
reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that recognizes both the 
political realities of this place and, I think, the legitimate concerns 
of all the States involved.
  The bill which I am proud to have sponsored with a number of my 
colleagues addresses three of the top priorities I have.
  The bill, No. 1, increases the overall amount of transportation 
dollars that we invest in our infrastructure.
  Two, it gives a fairer return of transportation dollars to the State 
of Missouri.
  And, three, it provides additional flexibility to State and local 
planners, decisionmakers, and officials to address their specific 
transportation needs.
  I hope that we can move forward on this vitally important legislation 
so we can address the numerous issues pending, such as transit, safety, 
and the Finance Committee title, which includes another critically 
important issue to Missouri and the rest of the country--that is 
ethanol.
  The Finance Committee amendment includes an extension to 2007 of 
ethanol's tax incentives. This exemption promotes energy security by 
lowering our dependence on foreign oil. It is cleaner burning. It is a 
cleaner burning fuel, so it is good for the environment. And it is a 
renewable resource that really benefits our rural economy. The Senate 
voted overwhelmingly this summer to support this extension in the 
Taxpayers' Relief Act, and we defeated those who attempted to end the 
exemption in 1998. Senator Grassley and others have done an outstanding 
job of leading our bipartisan coalition. I am proud to be part of that 
coalition, and I expect us to prevail if and when we are challenged 
again on this issue.
  Another amendment that is important will reauthorize the act 
providing assistance to States for fish restoration, wetlands 
restoration and boat safety, commonly known as ``Wallop-Breaux.'' I am 
particularly interested in a new provision to authorize a new 
``National Outreach and Communications Program'' designed to introduce 
additional segments of the public--especially America's youth--to the 
healthy fun of fishing and boating, to increase awareness of boating 
and fishing opportunities, and to promote safe and environmentally 
sound boating and fishing practices. Fishing is very important, in my 
State, to the recreational industry, and it is a favorite pastime of 
thousands and thousands of enthusiasts. I was out there, I confess. 
Most people with good judgment wouldn't be out on a wind-blown lake in 
35 degree temperature getting their feet wet, getting cold to the bone 
but going after the mighty sport fish, a tremendously important part of 
our heritage, and I am going to keep doing it until one of these days I 
quit being outsmarted by the fish.
  Mr. President, moving our transportation policy into the 2lst century 
will be a challenge. There is no denying that. I hope we can move 
forward and move forward soon on this vitally important legislation so 
that these amendments that I have mentioned and other important 
amendments can be debated and voted on.
  It is important to realize that maintaining our Nation's roads and 
bridges is not a glamorous undertaking, but as with the debate raging 
in education circles about improving our Nation's crumbling schools, so 
goes the equally important debate about improving public 
infrastructure.
  Mr. President, as we prepare and plan our transportation policy for 
the 21st century, I hope all of us remember four basic principles that 
our new policy must ensure. First and foremost is safety, but also 
fairness, efficiency, and economic competitiveness.
  Mr. President, when we do move to the consideration of this bill--as 
I said, I hope that will be soon--I intend to offer an amendment with 
Senator Breaux, an amendment that has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle, because it makes good sense. This is an amendment that affects 
both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. They reviewed the amendment. 
They have no objection to it. It is consistent with administration 
policy and its Federal guidance issued November 1995. It is supported 
by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. And, 
beyond that, it is good for wetlands protection. It promotes private-
sector efforts to protect wetlands. And it saves money that can be used 
on highways or other authorized uses under this act. Truly a win-win-
win amendment.

  Now that I have your rapt attention, let me tell you what this 
amendment would do.
  This amendment provides that when highway projects result in impacts 
to wetlands that require compensation mitigation under current law, 
preference should be given, to the extent practicable, to private-
sector mitigation banks. The amendment mandates that the banks be 
approved in accordance with the administration's Federal guidance on 
mitigation banking issued in 1995, and it requires that the bank be 
within the service area of the impacted wetlands.
  The administration's definition of mitigation banking is

       . . . the restoration, creation, enhancement and, in 
     exceptional circumstances, preservation of wetlands and/or 
     aquatic resources expressly for the purpose of providing 
     compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to 
     similar resources.


[[Page S11032]]


  Mitigation is usually accomplished by restoring or creating other 
wetlands. Isolated, on-site mitigation projects, however, are expensive 
and costly to maintain. Wetlands mitigation banks are typically large 
tracts of land that have been restored as wetlands.
  A State department of transportation building a highway project which 
impacts wetlands merely buys credits generated in the bank based on the 
acreage and quality of the restored wetlands in order to satisfy its 
obligation to mitigate the harm to the impacted wetlands by the 
construction of the highway. The bank sponsor assumes full 
responsibility for maintaining the restored wetlands site, and the 
State department of transportation has thus fulfilled its mitigation 
requirement.
  The amendment does not change in any way the mitigation required. It 
provides simply that mitigation banking will be the preferred 
alternative once mitigation requirements are determined.
  Last year, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a 
hearing where witnesses from the administration, the private sector, 
the environmental community, and the scientific community spoke to the 
promise of mitigation banking as being an important instrument to 
protect wetlands and to do so with less red tape and, most importantly, 
at less expense to our highway and transportation programs.
  Now, this proposal is strongly supported by the Missouri and the Ohio 
Departments of Transportation and by the nationwide association AASHTO. 
A September letter from the Ohio Director of Transportation notes that 
``the Ohio department's costs for on-site mitigation have ranged as 
high as $150,000 an acre when the cost of design, real estate, 
construction and mitigation monitoring were combined. These costs are 
not out of line with the high end costs experienced by many other 
departments of transportation around the country. Our lowest costs for 
on-site mitigation have generally exceeded $35,000 per acre. The cost 
of banking, in our experience, has ranged from around $10,000 to 
$12,000 per acre and includes all of the above-cited cost factors. This 
equates to about one-quarter the cost of our average on-site 
mitigation.''
  In Florida, the department of transportation pays its department of 
environmental protection $75,000 for every acre it impacts for 
mitigation. By contrast, the Florida wetlands bank acres in Broward 
County are sold for a reported $50,000 to $55,000. The State of 
Illinois in the Chicago area has had a similar experience.
  The savings can be significant and they can be achieved because of 
specialization and economies of scale. As a result, less Federal 
highway money is spent on mitigating impacts to wetlands. More Federal 
highway money is made available for highway construction. And the 
wetlands, wildlife and conservation benefits are achieved in the most 
efficient manner possible. The Vice President and others have said we 
should pursue ways in which we can make environmental protection a 
profitable enterprise while actually reducing the permit process times 
for citizens weaving their way through the burdensome wetlands 
permitting process.
  This does just that. Many agree that mitigation banks, which must be 
approved, will have a greater long-term rate of success in protecting 
wetlands because, one, the people who sell the credits are in the 
business of wetlands protection; two, the banks are easy to regulate 
and be held accountable; three, there is more time and flexibility for 
a bank to procure and identify high-quality wetlands.
  Again, this is a good amendment. It is good for the environment. It 
is good for the efficiencies. It will save highway dollars and make 
sure we deliver the wetlands protection with the wildlife, 
environmental and conservation benefits that go along with it in the 
most efficient use possible of our precious highway dollars.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will support the bipartisan 
amendment when we are enabled to present it in the Chamber in the 
consideration of the highway transportation reauthorization bill, 
ISTEA.
  Mr. President, I see others in the Chamber so I will yield the floor 
at this time. I thank the Chair.


                           MITIGATION BANKING

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I'm pleased to cosponsor with Senator Bond 
the mitigation banking amendment to the highway bill. I thank Senator 
Bond for his leadership and am pleased to continue working with him on 
wetlands-related issues.
  The Bond-Breaux amendment is direct and straightforward. It simply 
says that mitigation banking shall be the preferred means, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to mitigate for wetlands or natural habitat 
which are affected as part of a Federal-aid highway project and whose 
mitigation is paid for with Federal-aid funds.
  In addition, the amendment identifies three factors that are to be 
met in order to use a mitigation bank: first, the affected wetlands or 
natural habitat are to be in a bank's service area; second, the bank 
has to have enough credits available to offset the impact; and third, 
the bank has to meet federally approved standards.
  So, Senator Bond and I, through this amendment, are simply trying to 
establish a reasonable, responsible wetlands and natural habitat 
mitigation policy as part of the Federal-aid highway program.
  Our proposal has two key components: First, we say give mitigation 
banking a preference, to the maximum extent practicable, which is 
reasonable. Second, we say a bank should meet certain conditions to 
ensure its effectiveness and viability, which is being responsible.
  Let me emphasize that our amendment does not mandate the use of 
mitigation banks. Nor does the amendment require their use nor does it 
say they shall be the sole means or the only method used to mitigate 
affected wetlands or natural habitat.
  The Bond-Breaux amendment simply says mitigation banks shall be the 
preferred means, to the maximum extent practicable, and they must meet 
certain responsible conditions before they can be used.
  Louisiana's transportation department officials have said that the 
State already uses mitigation banks and areas as an option for some of 
its highway projects.
  Mitigation banks can offer several advantages when constructed and 
operated responsibly. They can achieve economies of scale. They can 
provide larger, higher quality and diverse habitat and they can make 
mitigation costs less expensive when compared to costs for some 
isolated mitigation sites which are not part of a bank.
  The Bond-Breaux amendment certainly is in line with the environmental 
provisions and direction of the proposed highway bill we have before 
the Senate, S. 1173.
  For these reasons, I urge the Senate's adoption of the amendment when 
it comes up for consideration.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________