[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S682-S684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend the members of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and especially the
distinguished chairman of the committee, my lovable colleague from
Rhode Island, Senator John Chafee, that old crusty New Englander, whom
I greatly admire, for including some very important provisions in S.
1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, or
ISTEA II. In my statement today, I will focus on the important
provisions in the committee-reported bill that will expedite the
delivery of desperately needed transportation projects to the American
people--that is, if we ever get the opportunity to debate and amend and
adopt this important bill.
I think most members would agree that addressing environmental issues
in this body in a strong bipartisan way is--to say the least--
difficult. Yet, Senator Chafee has managed to accomplish what few
Senators have been able to do--craft legislation that enjoys strong
support from Senators on both sides of the aisle that would help put
order and efficiency in the way transportation projects are reviewed by
both state and federal agencies, and as a result, reduce the time it
takes to plan a project by as much as three years.
The ISTEA bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works
Committee, recognizes that every day counts when planning and
constructing a highway or bridge in this country are undertaken. The
problem that was addressed in S. 1173 is a serious one. It now takes
ten years to plan, design, and construct a typical transportation
project in this country. I am sure that if Senators contacted their own
state transportation departments, they would be disturbed to find the
number of transportation projects that are being delayed due to
overlapping and often redundant regulatory reviews and processes. These
delays increase costs and postpone needed safety improvements that
would save lives. One of the lives it saves may be yours. Think about
it. I can tell my colleagues that, in my state of West Virginia, these
numerous regulatory reviews have delayed critical improvements to the
two most dangerous segments of roadway in the state.
Why does it take so long to plan a project? These delays are
occurring because the development of a transportation project involves
multiple federal and state agencies evaluating the impacts of the
project and possible alternatives, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While it would seem that the NEPA
process would establish a uniform set of regulations and procedures for
the submission of documents nationwide, this has not been the case.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their
companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval
process, forcing separate reviews guided by separate regulations and
requiring planners to answer separate requests for information.
Moreover, each of these agencies issues approvals according to separate
schedules. The result: the time period
[[Page S683]]
from project beginning to completion has grown to at least 10 years in
many instances, and that assumes that the project is not controversial
and that adequate funding is available. If either of these assumptions
is not the case, the time period may be even longer.
The highway bill reported by the Environment & Public Works Committee
effectively improves the project planning process by establishing a
coordinated environmental review procedure within the U.S. Department
of Transportation. This change would allow all reviews, all analyses,
and all permits to be performed concurrently and cooperatively within a
mutually-agreed-upon schedule, by both the federal and state agencies
with jurisdiction over the project. Effective environmental
coordination, as envisioned under the ISTEA bill, would result in less
staff time and less expense for all the agencies and stakeholders in
the NEPA process and reduce the time it now takes in reaching a final
decision with respect to receiving project approvals and permits.
The committee studied a problem, the committee sought a solution, and
the committee put that solution in their bill. I understand that
further improvements to those provisions may be offered on the Senate
floor, if and when we finally take up and debate S. 1173, the 6-year
highway authorization bill. But here is the problem: we are not
considering S. 1173. We are not considering the 6-year highway
authorization bill. When will the bill be brought up? How long, Mr.
President, must we wait? Every day counts when planning and
constructing a transportation project. But soon, there will be no more
days to count because the program--the short-term, 6-month highway
authorization measure--will have expired and the funds will have dried
up. Counting today--counting today--there are only 42 session days
remaining through May 1.
So, we count today, and we count the day of May 1. And counting these
2 days, there are only 42 session days remaining. The time bomb is
ticking. You can hear it tick. And with every tick a minute, an hour, a
day will be gone. The time bomb is ticking--tick, tick, tick, tick. No
projects will be delivered under any review process after May 1,
because that is the drop-dead date in the short-term extension
legislation presently in place, beyond which no State may obligate any
Federal dollars.
Let's pause to read the language that is in the law--the law which
Congress passed last November and which was signed by President Clinton
on December 1 of last year. Read the language in the law. Read the
language, I say to the Governors and the mayors and the highway
agencies and to Senate and House Members. Read it. Here it is. I now
read from Public Law 105-130: The Surface Transportation Extension Act
of 1997. Here it is. Read it. Hear me as it is:
`` . . . a State shall not--
It doesn't say ``may not.''
`` . . . a State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid
highway program project after May 1, 1998 . . . .''
Let me read it again. This is the language in the law which the
Senate and House passed and which the President signed. Here is the
language:
`` . . . a State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal-aid
highway program project after May 1, 1998 . . . .''
As I say, counting today, and May 1, also, we have only 42 days in
which the Senate will be in session, not counting Sundays, not counting
Saturdays, not counting holidays. We have 42 session days. The time
bomb is ticking.
The clock is ticking. The days are counting down now before this
deadline. If an ISTEA reauthorization bill is not enacted by midnight
on May 1, highway program obligations will cease and projects will not
move forward.
Any delay in the planning and construction phases of a project may
cause the price of the project to rise considerably. In addition, a
delay in federal funding can cause a logjam of projects to be let for
bidding, resulting in a ``crowding'' of a large number of proposed
projects into the latter part of a construction season.
The construction seasons are soon going to be upon us, when
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn;
God's in his heaven--
All's right with the world.
Spring will be here. But will a 6-year highway authorization bill
have been passed?
This increased workload may strain the capacity of the construction
industry and subsequently increase the cost of projects.
Stopping the Federal-aid highway program, even for a brief period,
will also impact project delivery schedules in the long run. If
preliminary engineering and design work is not allowed to proceed, then
construction will not occur and, in fact, will be deferred into a
second construction season, thus crowding out and delaying projects
that were planned for the second year. Such a delay would have a ripple
effect--a ripple effect--from which it may take years for states to
fully recover. Remember, we are talking about critical transportation
projects designed to improve highway safety, reduce traffic congestion,
and clean our air.
We hear much about global warming--much about global warming. This is
the place to start. Pass a highway bill. Cut down on the traffic
congestion, the traffic jams, and the long lines of cars. Cut down on
the pollution that is filling the air while those cars sit and idle and
the time bomb ticks away.
The programmatic reforms in the committee-reported bill that I have
discussed here are very important. They will save time, they will save
money, and they will save lives. Yet, because we have not begun
consideration of the bill in this session, not one of these gains has
become a reality. The single most important factor that will determine
the timeliness of project delivery in 1998 will be the timely
reauthorization of ISTEA --the 6-year highway reauthorization bill.
So the time bomb is out there. It is in that language that I read a
moment ago from the law. The American people cannot afford to wait even
1 day past May 1 for the United States Congress to reauthorize ISTEA.
The U.S. Senate has the time now to consider ISTEA, and that is what we
should do.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 43 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Let me close for now with a passage from the Book of Isaiah, 58th
chapter and the 12th verse. And I read only from the King James version
of the Bible. In all probability, that is the version that our
forefathers brought over on the Mayflower--the King James version. Read
these other versions, and they will say, ``In my father's House are
many dwelling places.'' But the King James version says ``In my
father's House are many mansions.'' Ah, how much more beautiful is that
elegant language!
I read now from the King James version of the Bible, 58th chapter and
the 12th verse.
And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste
places:
thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations;
and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach,
The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Mr. President, I urge the majority leader to be the ``Repairer of the
Breach'' by calling up ISTEA now, so that we may be one step closer
towards enacting the provisions called for in S. 1173 that would help
accelerate the delivery of vitally-important transportation projects to
the American people.
Let me say again as I have said here before, I have been majority
leader. I was majority leader during the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and
1980, and I was again the majority leader during the 100th Congress in
1987-1988. I know the pressures that are on any majority leader. I have
felt them. I have walked in those same footprints that other majority
leaders have tread on the sands of time. I know that it is very
difficult, and many times impossible, to adhere to the wishes, to the
pleas of those who implore, those who beseech, those who importune the
majority leader to do this, to do that, to do something else. The
majority leader cannot please everybody.
This is not a partisan bill. This is a nonpartisan bill. There is no
partisanship in this bill. There is no partisanship in the amendment
that I have offered with Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and Senator
Warner as the
[[Page S684]]
chief cosponsors. There are 54 Members of the Senate who are
cosponsoring the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, and they are from
both sides of the aisle. They are Republicans and Democrats, about
evenly divided, I would say, among those names that are on that
amendment.
There is no partisanship here. There is no partisanship in my urging
the majority leader to call up ISTEA--no partisanship. I know he is
under great pressure from some of the Senators on the Budget Committee,
including, I am sure, the distinguished chairman, Mr. Domenici, a man
who has one of the finest brains in this Senate. He does not want the
ISTEA bill brought up, he and Mr. Chafee. Mr. Chafee has said so. So I
am not saying anything behind their backs that I would not say
anywhere. They prefer to wait until the budget resolution is called up.
Mr. President, the country needs a 6-year highway authorization bill,
and the time is ticking. Failure to call it up will only undermine the
very necessary progress that this bill is designed to make.
I believe that if the majority leader were left to his own pursuits--
he has not told me this--he would call this bill up. But my good
friend, Senator Domenici, is a very powerful Senator. He was here a
moment ago. He will be back later today. And I am not saying anything
to make him feel that I am taking any advantage of him. But if he would
just leave it to the majority leader, I think we would get this bill
up. That is my own opinion.
Mr. President, failure to take up the bill, as I say, will undermine
the very necessary progress that that bill is trying to make, and it
deprives me and other Senators from calling up amendments to that bill.
Our transportation system, our people's safety, and the country's
economy all await action by the Congress on the 6-year highway
authorization bill. What are we waiting for? How long, Mr. President,
how long will we have to wait? How long?
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 35 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. How many minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I reserve that time until later in the
day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be allowed
to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.
____________________