[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.
____________________