[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11313-S11317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will report the pending 
business.
  The bill 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. BYRD. Mr. President I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, has the time under the Pastore amendment run its 
course?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that the Pastore rule 
will expire at 2:02.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent I may speak out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, some days ago, the two distinguished 
Senators, Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici, offered an amendment which they 
proposed to call up at some point during the debate on the highway 
bill. There has been no floor discussion of that amendment. I have seen 
and read various things that are being written about the amendment and 
in criticism of the amendment which Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner and 
I have offered for printing. My colleagues and I had offered an 
amendment several days ago and indicated we were offering it for 
printing, and that we intended to call it up at such time as the 
amendment tree was dismantled, and we would have an opportunity to call 
up the amendment.
  There have been some discussions of our amendment, but I think it is 
appropriate to talk about the amendment now that has been offered, I 
assume, as an alternative to our amendment. I don't know what the 
prognosis of this bill is--whether it will be taken down and no action 
taken on extending the highway bill, or whether there will be a 6-month 
extension, or whether there will be a 6-year bill. I should think that 
the chances for the latter are diminishing with every passing minute.
  In any event, it seems to me that there ought to be some discussion 
about the Chafee-Domenici amendment. I have spoken to Mr. Chafee a 
number of times about the amendment and have indicated to him that I 
thought we ought to have some discussion of it so that certain 
questions might be clarified. I personally have a few things to say 
about the amendment. I think the public is entitled to some 
enlightenment as to what it does and what it does not do. So that is 
the reason why I have chosen to take the floor at this time.
  The sponsors of this amendment, my friends Senators Domenici and 
Chafee, have brought forward an amendment that claims to be an 
alternative to the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. I think when all 
Members thoroughly review the Domenici-Chafee amendment they will find 
that it is not an alternative at all. Rather, it is an effort designed 
to obfuscate and confuse Senators into thinking that they, the authors 
of the amendment, have accomplished the same ends as the Byrd-Gramm 
amendment.
  Senators ought not be confused. I can understand how they are being 
confused, however. There have been no discussions of the Chafee-
Domenici amendment on the floor. There has been discussion of it in 
memos that have been passed around, letters, articles in various 
publications, one of which was Congress Daily on yesterday, which was 
not accurate in many ways. Inasmuch as there has been considerable 
discussion of the Byrd-Gramm amendment, I think there ought to be an 
explanation of the Chafee-Domenici amendment and it ought to be out 
here on the floor in open view where everybody can see what is being 
said and hear what is being said and make up their own minds.
  I feel very much like I am being shot at by someone behind a 
barricade. They don't come out in the open in public view and take 
their shots at the Byrd-Gramm amendment there, but I am being shot at. 
All kinds of things are being said about this amendment that I have 
offered, many of which things are absolutely not true. Also, many 
things are being claimed on behalf of the Chafee-Domenici amendment 
that are likewise inaccurate. So I think that there ought to be more 
discussion regarding the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Let's talk about 
it.
  The differences between these amendments--the Chafee amendment on the 
one hand; and my amendment on the other--are as simple as they are 
stark. The Byrd-Gramm amendment authorizes an additional $31 billion in 
contract authority for investment in our Nation's highways over the 6 
years covered in the underlying ISTEA bill.
  The Domenici-Chafee amendment authorizes not even one, not even one 
additional dollar in contract authority for this 6-year period.
  The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorizes the spending of a 
4.3-cent gas tax that is now going into the highway trust fund on our 
transportation needs over the next 6 years. The Domenici-Chafee 
amendment does not authorize any of this gas tax revenue to be spent on 
our highway, bridge and safety needs. That is a big difference. Our 
amendment authorizes the spending of the 4.3-cent gas tax that is now 
going into the highway trust fund.
  We say it ought to be spent. The American people are being told that 
that is what it's for. They are not being told that if it goes into the 
general fund, it will be spent on the various

[[Page S11314]]

and sundry other programs, such as Indian roads, research, Head Start, 
education, parks, or just put into the General Treasury. They are not 
being told that. They think it is going into the highway trust fund to 
be spent on transportation needs--highways, mass transit, bridges. I 
think we owe them, in all honesty, an explanation. We ought to try to 
see to it that that money is spent for highways, mass transit, bridges, 
and so on.
  We are not saying in our amendment that it ``shall'' be spent. But we 
are authorizing contract authority, and then come next spring when the 
Appropriations Committees meet and we have debate on the budget 
resolution, we will get into discussions as to whether or not there 
will actually be obligation authority to spend that money and, if so, 
how much, and so on. We are saying if savings are there, from which the 
$31 billion will come, and if we are going to spend those savings, 
then, transportation needs are top priority.
  But the Domenici-Chafee amendment does not authorize any of this gas-
tax revenue to be spent on our highway, bridge, and safety needs. 
Members should not be surprised by this. My friend, the Senator from 
Rhode Island, had stated in earlier debate on this bill that he does 
not believe that the 4.3-cents gas tax should be spent on our 
transportation needs. That is his view, and I respect him for that. He 
isn't running for a rock to hide under. He is just announcing from the 
steeple tops that he doesn't believe that the gas tax ought to be spent 
on transportation needs. He thinks it ought to go toward reducing the 
deficit. He is very plain and open about that, and you have to admire 
him for that. That is his view, and I respect that.
  However, that is not my view. It was not the view of the 83 Senators 
who voted in favor of an amendment on this floor on May 22 of this year 
that called for the 4.3 cents to be transferred to the highway trust 
fund and spent on our transportation needs.
  The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment keeps faith with our vote on 
May 22. It keeps faith with the millions of American citizens who fill 
their gas tanks and pay their gas taxes, with the expectation that 
these funds will be spent on the construction and rehabilitation of our 
highways and mass transit and bridges. The Domenici-Chafee amendment 
tells those millions of Americans and those 83 Senators that they must 
wait for another day, wait until next spring, wait until we have the 
next budget resolution before the Senate, and, perhaps, maybe--we don't 
know--we might consider authorizing the spending of your gas taxes on 
the Nation's highways and bridge needs, and then again, we might not. 
We don't make you any promises. But, by all means, don't do anything on 
this bill; don't take action on this bill, the highway authorization 
bill. Wait.
  The Domenici-Chafee amendment says that notwithstanding the fact that 
we are currently debating a 6-year highway authorization bill, now is 
not the time to decide the authorization level for highway spending for 
the next 6 years. Don't do it now--not now, not here. Wait. You Members 
here who are waiting with open mouths and open arms to see legislation 
pass that will assure your State and your State's transportation 
department of so much contract authority so that they can at least 
begin to think about it and plan about it, all of you just wait, don't 
do anything now. This is that old 6-year highway bill that comes out of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. Wait. Don't do it on that 
bill. Wait. Wait until some day in the future--maybe never.
  I have said as clearly as I can what the Domenici-Chafee amendment 
does not do. Allow me to take a moment to explain what the Domenici 
amendment does do. The Domenici-Chafee amendment seeks to establish a 
complex and convoluted process that basically enables the Senate to 
hide under a rock when it comes to the issue of highway taxes and our 
highway needs. The Domenici amendment proposes a new, Rube Goldberg, 
fast-track process for each of the next 5 years that would allow the 
Congress to increase highway and/or mass transit authorizations in some 
yet-to-be-determined amount each year, if the budget resolution for any 
such year allows it. You can just forget about this highway bill. Just 
wait, wait until another time, and if the budget resolution allows it, 
then we might increase highway and/or mass transit authorization. That 
will be determined next year--maybe, but not now.
  Not surprisingly, the amendment would also allow the Congress to 
ignore all those new procedures and do absolutely nothing. Members know 
that I am not in favor of fast-track procedures. I don't favor fast 
track on trade, and I am not going to vote for fast track. I don't 
favor fast-track procedures. We have too many of them now. In my view, 
they trample on the rights of all Senators and they cut off meaningful 
debate. When it comes to the Domenici-Chafee amendment, I think all 
Members should cast a careful eye on this so-called fast-track 
procedure, because this fast-track amendment may very well be the slow 
track to additional highway spending.

  So they say, take a look at our amendment, and if you are going to 
increase contract authority for your State and your State and your 
State and your State, we will know that at some point next spring--not 
now. This is the highway bill. That is the way we have been accustomed 
to doing it. But forget it, that is that old 6-year highway bill. Don't 
fool with it or pay any attention to that.
  I am quite surprised that Senator Chafee, the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, would go along with that idea. 
His committee has been the key committee when it comes to jurisdiction 
in authorizing contract authority. But now he has joined in an 
amendment that says: Not now, maybe next year sometime--maybe. There is 
no guarantee. Maybe next year and, if next year, we are going to have a 
fast-track procedure.
  When I was a boy, I read a book called ``Slow Train Through 
Arkansas.'' Well, that was in the old days when they believed in 
voodooism and snake oil and patent medicines that were sold by 
traveling con salesmen, and so on. So, next year, under the Chafee-
Domenici amendment, we will have a fast track--not the ``Slow Train 
Through Arkansas,'' but a fast track.
  If Senators vote for the Domenici-Chafee amendment, you are not 
voting for a single dollar in your State for contract authority over 
the next 6 years--not a single dollar. The Chafee-Domenici amendment is 
saying: Wait until next year, we will take a look at it then. And then 
in the budget resolution, when that comes along, we will take a look at 
it then. Mind you, we are not saying in the Chafee-Domenici amendment 
that we are going to spend any of that gas-tax money on highways. We 
are going to let that stay in the Highway Trust Fund. Let that money 
accumulate, and next spring, other governmental needs can compete with 
highways in the use of that money in the trust fund.
  Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici are not assuring you Senators that that 
money in the highway trust fund is going to be spent on highways. They 
are saying we are not even sure we can do that at all. We are not 
assuring you that you are going to get any extra money. We are going to 
wait until next year, they say. When the budget resolution is up here 
next spring, then we will talk about it, they say. Then we will decide 
what we do with that money. We may spend it on highways; we may not. We 
may spend it on Indian roads; we may not. We may spend it on parks and 
recreation. We may spend it on the national forests. We may spend it on 
Head Start. We may spend it on welfare. There are a lot of things we 
may spend it for, they say. But we don't make that decision here. Mr. 
Chafee and Mr. Domenici say that we will make that decision when we 
have the budget resolution.
  So if you are on the Budget Committee, you are going to have control 
of that. The Domenici-Chafee amendment says that on this 6-year highway 
authorization bill we should do nothing, nothing, nothing toward 
authorizing additional highway funding. We should put that decision off 
until another day. That other day may never come. That other day need 
never come.
  If Members want to know how the authorized spending levels contained 
in the Domenici-Chafee amendment differ from the levels in the Byrd-
Gramm amendment, they need look no further than the first section of 
the Domenici-Chafee amendment. I say the same to

[[Page S11315]]

Commerce Daily. When Commerce Daily gets ready to write again, I 
suggest they look at the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Look at it. Don't 
take somebody else's word for it. Don't take some aide's word for it. I 
am not speaking disparagingly of aides. We have to have them, and I 
have some excellent aides on my staff, and so have other Senators. But 
go look at the amendment yourself. Look at the Chafee-Domenici 
amendment. Read it. They will find it stated very clearly there.
  That amendment reads, and I quote from section 3001(A)(2) of the 
Chafee-Domenici amendment:

       (A) For fiscal year 1999, $0.
       (B) For fiscal year 2000, $0.
       (C) For fiscal year 2001 [guess what?], $0.
       (D) For fiscal year 2002 [guess again, and I'll give you 
     three guesses], $0.
  In fiscal year 2003, try again. What is your guess? How much do you 
guess? Zero dollars. That is a joke.
  Members, if you want to vote for the Chafee-Domenici amendment, do 
you know what you are voting for? Zero dollars--next year, the next 
year, the next year, and the next year. Look at it. Don't take my word 
for it. Read it. Get that amendment and look at it. Members will find 
that same paragraph repeated throughout the amendment when it refers to 
each of the highway and mass transit components of the amendment.
  Here on the chart to my left is the difference between the two 
amendments. Here is the difference between the Domenici-Chafee ISTEA II 
amendment and the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner ISTEA II amendment.
  Let me read it. It is in fine print. Maybe we ought to read the fine 
print, or just plain read the print instead of taking somebody's word 
for it. Go get the amendment. Read it for yourself. Don't read the 
propaganda that comes to you in a memo or a letter. But get the 
amendment, and read it yourself. Don't take everything the preacher 
says for being true. Read the Bible yourself. Go to the basic text.
  All right. Here it is. ``Comparison of authorization of levels for 
highway and bridge construction Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA II).''
  I am going to ask my assistant to point out what I am reading so that 
the viewers can look through that electronic eye up there and follow me 
and see if I am reading it correctly. I do not want to mislead you. 
``Fiscal year 1992-1993 total.''
  For those 5 years, what is the total under the Domenici-Chafee ISTEA 
II amendment? What is the total additional contract authority for 
highways during those 5 years? Let's see. Under the Domenici-Chafee 
ISTEA II amendment, the total for those 5 years that you will be voting 
for, if you vote for the Chafee-Domenici amendment, you are going to be 
voting for zero dollars. There it is right there, a big cipher!
  All right. What about the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner ISTEA II 
amendment? What additional contract authority are you voting for? 
$30,971,000,000 over a period of 5 years. That is the difference. The 
difference between $30.971 billion, and zero--zero. That is the 
difference between the two amendments.
  Members will find that paragraph, as I say, repeated throughout the 
amendment when it refers to each of the highway and mass transit 
components of the amendment.
  Now, later in the amendment, we read that all those zeros--zero for 
1999, zero for 2000, zero for 2001, zero for 2002, and zero for 2003; 
all those zeros we find, if we read the Chafee-Domenici amendment--we 
read that all those zeros may be further amended someday in the future 
under a ``fast track'' procedure, or they may not. And the funding 
levels that may substituted for the zeros throughout the amendment can 
be found later in the amendment under the heading ``additional highway 
funding.''
  So if Senators look later in the amendment, you will find the funding 
levels that may be substituted for these zeros for the 5 years--``may 
be substituted'' for the zeros. You will find those funding levels that 
may--may--at some time in the future be substituted for the zeros. You 
get the zeros now. But maybe sometime in the future there will be 
funding levels substituted. What are the numbers that may be 
substituted? Well, you will find them in the Chafee-Domenici amendment 
under the heading ``additional highway funding''.
  That part of the amendment--let's take a look at it--reads as 
follows:

       Section 3001(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1997 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$0'' and inserting 
     --

  How much?
  ``blank'';
  So maybe sometime in the future we will substitute for this old big 
zero--hold your breath. We are going to substitute for that zero--get 
ready now. I am going to pull a rabbit out of the hat. We are going to 
substitute for that zero--``blank.''
  Let me see it. Could I be telling the truth here? That is what it 
says here on page 7. Is that the Chafee-Domenici highway amendment? 
Yes. On page 7:

       Section (1). Additional highway funding.
       In subparagraph (A), by striking ``$0'' and inserting . . 
     .''

  Well, there is a dollar sign--dollar sign, and a long line --
``blank.''

       Paragraph (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$0'' and 
     inserting ``blank'';

  And so on for all the paragraphs, A, B, C, and D.
  So the amendment strikes ``zero'' and inserts ``blank'' in each 
paragraph. You strike the zero. We had five zeros up there earlier, but 
maybe sometime in the future, if Senators vote for this amendment, we 
will substitute at some time in the future for that zero, we would 
substitute a dollar sign. This says ``zero'' dollars. We will leave the 
dollar sign, take out the zero, and just draw a straight line, and 
substitute ``blank.''

  Well, that sums it all up, Mr. President. The Domenici Chafee 
amendment is shooting blanks. We shoot real bullets in ours--Mr. Gramm, 
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Warner, and I--no blanks. That sums it up. The 
Domenici-Chafee amendment is shooting blanks.
  That is about all that these publications, commenting on the Chafee-
Domenici amendment, will find in the amendment. Have they taken a look 
at the Chafee-Domenici amendment? Go see it for yourself. Read it. It 
is a public matter.
  There is no real new contract authority in the Chafee-Domenici 
amendment. It is an amendment about process. And, if any of you 
Senators want to know how much of the additional 4.3-cents gas tax this 
Chafee-Domenici process may spend on highways, the answer is we don't 
know. We can't tell you. Maybe some of it will be spent. Maybe none of 
it. Maybe a little of it. Maybe a lot. Maybe a lot one year, and none 
the next year.
  Under the Chafee-Domenici proposal, who will decide whether any 
additional funding is authorized over the next 6 years? Certainly not 
the Environment and Public Works Committee. No, no, no. That committee 
might as well disband as far as this subject matter is concerned. Who 
will decide? It will be the Budget Committee. The Domenici amendment 
says that, depending on what the ``budgeteers'' decide in the budget 
resolution every year between now and 2003, we may be able to get 
considered in the Senate a new fast-track highway and transit funding 
joint resolution.
  So it will be the Budget Committee, not the authorizing committee, 
not that old Environment and Public Works Committee, and not the 
Appropriations Committee. Take your choice. It won't be either of them. 
Am I right? It is going to be the Budget Committee.
  We will not need the authorizing committee. We will just let the 
budget committee decide it all. They will decide whether it is going to 
be zero dollars or whether it is going to be ``blank'' dollars. And 
then, whatever it is going to be, that committee will decide whether we 
are going to have a fast track, a slow track, or no track. And each 
year that budget resolution may or may not spit out a new kind of joint 
resolution, a highway and transit funding joint resolution. If the 
budget committee decides that there should be such a joint resolution, 
then it would be treated under a very tight fast-track procedure. It 
would be unamendable, except for amendments to either raise or lower 
the dollar amounts. Then, after no more than 10 hours of consideration, 
the Senate would proceed without intervening action or debate to vote 
on the final disposition of highway and transit funding joint 
resolutions to the exclusion of all motions

[[Page S11316]]

except a motion to reconsider or to table.
  Finally, a motion to recommit would not be in order, and all points 
of order against these funding joint resolutions would be waived.
  That is the fast-track procedure that Senators will find outlined in 
the Chafee-Domenici amendment to the highway bill.
  There are no procedures expedited or otherwise for our colleagues in 
the other body to take up such a joint resolution. We are just going to 
bind and gag the Senate, you understand; that is all. Senators will be 
limited to 10 hours. And Senators can only offer certain amendments to 
raise or lower the dollar level. But if Senators are not satisfied with 
the formula, forget it. You can't offer an amendment to our fast-track 
bill dealing with formulas. If any of you are unhappy about formulas, 
you can't offer an amendment on that bill. That is a fast-track bill. 
And, besides, there is nothing outlined in this so-called ``fast-
track'' procedure that guarantees Senators of anything once the bill is 
passed by the Senate and sent to conference, or sent to the other body.
  If Senators turn to the very end of the Domenici-Chafee amendment, 
they will see subparagraph 3. That subparagraph reads as follows and I 
quote:

       In the House of Representatives.--``Blank.''

  There it is again. More blanks.
  There are no procedures for this so-called ``Highway and Transit 
Funding Joint Resolution'' to be considered in the other body.
  So, if such a joint resolution gets out of the Senate, it might just 
sit in the other body until the end of the Congress or until the crack 
of doom, whichever comes first. Or the House might amend the resolution 
and insert new substantive legislation--perhaps a complete new highway 
formula. Even though Senators would be strictly limited in the 
amendments they can offer to this resolution, there is no limit to what 
changes and amendments might be entertained in the other body. Of 
course, we don't have jurisdiction over their procedures. But why 
should we bind and gag and virtually blindfold Members of this Senate 
when it comes to fast-track procedure? We could be required to have a 
formula fight with the House over highway funding each and every year 
for the next 6 years if we wanted to authorize additional spending for 
the highway bill.
  Well, I hope that all of my colleagues are carefully following this 
process. This is the process that they are being asked to vote for 
under the Chafee-Domenici amendment. The Byrd-Gramm amendment doesn't 
bind you to any fast track. The Byrd-Gramm amendment simply says let's 
authorize the new gas-tax revenues in the trust fund to be spent over 
the next 6 years on our highways and other transportation needs.
  That is it, pure and simple. We believe that. Most Senators believe 
that. They have said so. They voted so.

  The Domenici-Chafee amendment calls for a 17-step process with 11 
contingencies which, in the end, might not authorize one, not even one, 
might not authorize one--this is a $1 bill with George Washington's 
picture on it--might not authorize even one additional trust fund 
dollar for our highways.
  Now, that is the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Why don't you come out 
here and talk about your amendment? Read it. Read it to the other 
Senators.
  It is a process that is designed to continue to allow us to hide 
under that rock--hide under that rock--while our highway needs go 
wanting, while our bridges deteriorate, and while our traffic jams 
worsen. It is a process that will only heighten cynicism of our 
constituents and continue to undermine the trust of the American people 
in the highway trust fund.
  My colleagues, I am not fooled by this amendment, and you should not 
be fooled either. Get it and read it. This amendment is not about 
spending our trust fund dollars on highways. It is not about restoring 
the trust of the American people in our highway trust fund. This 
amendment is about ignoring the usual authorization-appropriations 
process and substituting a burdensome, multistep process designed to 
confuse the American people and enable the Congress to do absolutely 
nothing when it comes to authorizing additional highway spending.
  I am sure that Senators Domenici and Chafee had nothing but the best 
of intentions in offering this amendment. Unfortunately, their proposal 
is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion on the existing 
authorization and appropriations processes and provides no assurance 
whatsoever--none--that any additional highway or transit spending will 
be authorized. It is in violation of the Budget Act--a 60-vote point of 
order will lie against the Chafee-Domenici amendment.
  The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, on the other hand, is in 
keeping with the existing budget, authorization, and appropriations 
processes. Although our amendment is also subject to a 60-vote point of 
order, it is due to the increased authorizations contained in our 
amendment. The question of the level of highway obligation limits and 
whether the discretionary spending caps will be raised are left to the 
appropriations and budget processes. Our amendment does not resort to 
any new, highfalutin, confusing, fast-track resolution process which I 
fear will allow Senators the opportunity to hide under that rock and 
ignore both our highway needs and the skyrocketing balances in the 
highway trust fund.
  Now, I say what I have said with the greatest respect for the authors 
of the amendment. I have sought to get an explanation of the amendment. 
I want an explanation that is a public explanation. I do not want an 
explanation by somebody who has not even read the amendment. I do not 
want an explanation by a publication that does not bother to read what 
the amendment says.
  I do not want that kind of an explanation. I want an explanation of 
the amendment here on this floor. I do not want to be shot at from 
behind a barricade; I cannot see who is shooting at me. Besides, that 
person may be wearing black glasses. From time to time, when I am out 
on the hustings, it happens in every crowd. I'll bet the Presiding 
Officer has had this same thing. Somebody will walk up to me with dark 
glasses, black glasses: ``Bet you don't know who I am, Senator. Bet you 
don't know, Senator. Bet you don't remember me.''
  Well, of course, I don't. I can't see you. I can't see your eyes.
  I urge that we have a public explanation of the Chafee-Domenici 
amendment in this forum. Explain these zeros. Explain these blanks. And 
tell other Senators how your amendment compares with the Byrd-Gramm-
Baucus-Warner amendment. Explain it. How is your State going to get 
more money under your amendment? How is your State going to get any 
money out of the Chafee-Domenici amendment? Explain it out here in 
public view.
  So while I have great respect for these two fine Senators--and they 
are. They are fine Senators--I nevertheless urge all Senators to join 
me in voting, if we ever come to a vote, to sustain the point of order 
against the Domenici-Chafee amendment. Sustain the point of order. And 
I hope that the point of order on my own amendment will be waived.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table proposed by the 
Federal Highway Administration, which compares the authorization levels 
contained in the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment with the levels 
contained in the Domenici-Chafee amendment, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 FY 1999-2003 TOTAL ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY BYRD/GRAMM
                     AND DOMENICI/CHAFEE AMENDMENTS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Domenici/
                     State                       Byrd/Gramm     Chafee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................      556,579            0
Alaska........................................      345,600            0
Arizona.......................................      432,854            0
Arkansas......................................      370,684            0
California....................................    2,550,537            0
Colorado......................................      355,465            0
Connecticut...................................      477,038            0
Delaware......................................      130,994            0
Dist. of Col..................................      125,973            0
Florida.......................................    1,283,335            0
Georgia.......................................      977,098            0
Hawaii........................................      166,380            0
Idaho.........................................      228,542            0
Illinois......................................      927,157            0
Indiana.......................................      677,914            0
Iowa..........................................      367,807            0
Kansas........................................      364,977            0
Kentucky......................................      483,486            0
Louisiana.....................................      495,201            0
Maine.........................................      160,097            0

[[Page S11317]]

 
Maryland......................................      419,975            0
Massachusetts.................................      495,412            0
Michigan......................................      879,236            0
Minnesota.....................................      416,732            0
Mississippi...................................      351,580            0
Missouri......................................      663,387            0
Montana.......................................      295,433            0
Nebraska......................................      234,004            0
Nevada........................................      203,458            0
New Hampshire.................................      144,929            0
New Jersey....................................      671,691            0
New Mexico....................................      292,646            0
New York......................................    1,419,503            0
North Carolina................................      787,713            0
North Dakota..................................      203,458            0
Ohio..........................................      959,599            0
Oklahoma......................................      439,300            0
Oregon........................................      358,934            0
Pennsylvania..................................    1,056,906            0
Rhode Island..................................      161,652            0
South Carolina................................      442,846            0
South Dakota..................................      217,394            0
Tennessee.....................................      630,768            0
Texas.........................................    1,918,693            0
Utah..........................................      240,460            0
Vermont.......................................      130,994            0
Virginia......................................      713,320            0
Washington....................................      512,401            0
West Virginia.................................      284,833            0
Wisconsin.....................................      506,291            0
Wyoming.......................................      211,820            0
Puerto Rico...................................      127,917            0
                                               -------------------------
      Subtotal................................   27,871,000            0
                                               =========================
Trade Corridors/Border Crossings..............      450,000            0
Appalachian Development Highway System........    2,200,000            0
I-4R/Bridge Discretionary.....................      450,000            0
                                               -------------------------
      Grand Total.............................   30,971,000            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________