[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S704-S706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE NEED FOR ISTEA

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to 
urge the Senate to begin the debate on the ISTEA reauthorization bill.
  That is important for a number of reasons, that I will get to in a 
moment. But first let me comment on why we find ourselves in this 
position.
  As my colleagues know, the current ISTEA legislation expired on 
September 30th of last year.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee, under the leadership of 
our chairman Senator Chafee and our subcommittee chairman Senator 
Warner, reported the 6-year reauthorization bill on October 1.
  About that same time, the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee reported a stop gap 6-month extension. Unfortunately, as we 
all recall, the Senate bill got caught up in an unrelated debate over 
campaign finance reform.
  So, regrettably, last session ended with the Congress--both House and 
Senate--unable to complete action on a long-term bill to reauthorize 
this important legislation. The best we could do was to extend the 
funding until May 1 of this year.
  Now, there is plenty of blame to go around for this unfortunate 
situation. Whether it was the failure to invoke cloture, or the filling 
of the amendment tree, which prevented Senators from offering 
amendments, there were lots of reasons for our failure last year.
  But that was then, and this is now. And the plain fact is that 
pointing fingers at one another about what did, or did not, happen last 
year will not help us move a reauthorization bill this year.

[[Page S705]]

  So let us stop blaming one another for last year and let us start 
figuring out how to get the ISTEA legislation reauthorized quickly this 
year.
  Now, Mr. President, let me talk about why we need to move quickly 
with ISTEA. The simple fact is that without quick action, highway 
projects, safety programs, and transit projects will begin to lose the 
ability to meet our country's transportation needs.
  Already State highway officials tell us that they are beginning to 
delay projects. Why should this be so?
  Why are States slowing down, or stopping, some projects--even though 
there are still 42 days of funding left until the May 1st deadline?
  The reason is that most highway projects take a long time to 
complete. It is not unusual for even relatively simple projects to take 
three, four or five years to finish. Sometimes even more. And 
complicated or controversial projects, such as the Central Artery in 
Boston, can take a decade or two to go from conception to completion.
  In the highway business, you don't start a project unless you know 
you will have the funds to complete it.
  After all, these projects cannot be turned on and turned off like a 
faucet. Doing so wreaks havoc on the construction itself, on the 
neighborhood, on traffic congestion, and so on.
  Because these projects extend over many years, they require a 
certainty in funding that extends over a comparable period. That is why 
highway bills need to last for several years. ISTEA ran for 6 years. 
The Senate-reported bill also lasts for 6 years. This time provides a 
good sense of stability to the financing of projects and allows states 
and communities to plan their transportation programs efficiently.
  But a short-term extension gives you uncertainty, not stability. 
Especially for large projects, if states cannot assure that Federal 
matching funds will be available to finish it, they won't even start 
it. So they delay projects, even if there may be a few weeks of funding 
left.
  At the end of my remarks, I will list a few of the States that are 
beginning to delay projects. I hope my colleagues will pay close 
attention to it. Because the longer we delay a reauthorization bill, 
the longer this list will grow.
  Now, let me talk for a few minutes about how the highway program 
works on the ground. And the process I will describe is essentially the 
same in every State.
  Each project normally has three distinct stages--planning, 
development, and construction. Each stage can last from weeks to years, 
depending on the specific project. The charts I have here today focus 
on the project development stage, that is, the process of taking a 
project proposed by local government and getting it ready for 
construction.
  As my colleagues can see, it is not simple. A highway project goes 
through a very complicated process.
  The chart on my right shows the first phase--the ``survey phase''.
  This is the part of a project where State Departments of 
Transportation do such things as prepare for public hearings; begin to 
draft environmental documents; collect soil samples; begin preliminary 
engineering; assess traffic noise impacts; begin subsurface utility 
relocation; and assess wetlands and water quality impacts.
  The second chart, on my left, shows the ``design phase''. Here, 
States must prepare the design documents for a project. These documents 
include traffic access plans; wetland mitigation plans; review of soil 
samples for hazardous materials; and applications for water quality 
permits.
  Of course, it also includes preparation of final construction 
drawings, route alignments, schedules of materials, and the like.
  The third chart covers the ``right-of-way'' phase. In this phase, 
States prepare the final environmental documents; determine where 
rights-of-way must be acquired; determine utility relocations; 
determine final traffic access controls; obtain wetlands permits; and 
review all of the documents from the previous design phase.
  And as I said before, all this must be done before one shovelfull of 
dirt is turned.
  Now, Mr. President, I explain this process to my colleagues so that 
they can begin to understand the complicated nature of the highway 
program. Every project in every State must go through this type of 
process. In Montana, we have over 450 projects going through it. In 
States with larger transportation budgets, there can be as many as 
1,500 projects in the pipeline.
  No project can be ready to go to construction if it has been held up 
at any point in the development process. And States will not obligate 
funds to prepare a project for construction if they are uncertain they 
will actually be able to construct it at some point.
  For some projects that are large and complicated, the project 
development process can be longer than others. But the typical 
development time for a major construction project can range from five 
to seven years. That is, it can take five to seven years for a project 
to reach the point that it is ready for construction.
  Once a project is ready for construction, States must still advertise 
the project--which can take 3 to 4 weeks. Then States must receive 
bids, open the bids and award the contracts. That can take an 
additional 4 weeks. And workers, equipment and materials must be 
mobilized and brought to the construction site. More time.
  Finally, there is the time spent on actual construction.
  With such a complicated, time consuming process, it is important that 
Members of the Senate understand that even brief interruptions during 
project development can cascade into lengthy delays in construction.
  That is why the ISTEA bill runs for six years, to give the States 
some assurance they will not face wasteful delays and disruptions 
caused by funding uncertainties. That is also why a short-term 
extension, or worse, a series of short term extensions, is so 
disruptive.
  I have heard many Members ask ``what does it matter if we wait until 
late March or April to do this bill?''. I hope that once Members and 
staff become more familiar with this program, that will be a simple 
answer.
  If we wait to begin the debate until ``later'', this bill will not be 
done by the May 1st deadline. That means more projects will be delayed. 
It means thousands of workers will lose jobs. And I am afraid that such 
job losses will begin to happen soon.
  I have heard of one contractor who plans to lay off his construction 
workers on May 1st and will not rehire them until at least 30 days 
after the final conference report is agreed to.
  That same contractor will not be placing any orders with his 
suppliers until 45 to 60 days after a new bill is in place because he 
is uncertain he will have construction contracts to work on. And I am 
confident there are more contractors throughout the country making the 
same business decision.
  Mr. President, the hardworking Americans who lose their jobs because 
of these delays will do so through no fault of their own. These folks 
will be ready to show up for work every day and do a good job. And yet 
they will be told they must find other work because Congress couldn't 
resolve its differences and get the ISTEA bill reauthorized in time.
  Every State will feel this pain. Yes, some will hurt more than 
others. But every State will have to delay projects.
  As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, some States have already listed 
the projects that will most likely be delayed if a reauthorization bill 
is not signed into law by May 1st. These are real projects.
  These are projects that communities were counting on. These are 
projects that are important for the safety and mobility of drivers and 
pedestrians and to relieve congestion in these States.
  The States that have already made plans to delay projects include: 
Kentucky, South Dakota, Maine, Wyoming, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, New Hampshire, Indiana, North Dakota and 
Utah.
  More States are expected to announce their plans soon.
  Mr. President, let's not treat the reauthorization of ISTEA as a 
political football. The consequences for all of our States are very 
real. For those Senators who doubt the impacts, I simply ask that they 
call their State Department of Transportation. Ask them what they plan 
to do in the coming weeks. I can assure you that it will not be good 
news.
  So we have a very important job to do--to reauthorize ISTEA. Let's 
get to it.

[[Page S706]]

  I stand ready to work with the Majority Leader, with Senator Daschle, 
with my committee leadership, with Senators Byrd and Gramm, with the 
Budget Committee and all my colleagues to find a way to bring this bill 
up as soon as possible.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks on this 
very important subject. I sat and listened to them. I found them to be 
very illuminating, very interesting, very informative and refreshing.
  I have been around a good many years. I didn't realize all of the 
steps, the lengthy process, the consumption of time that is required 
from the alpha to the omega of planning and completing the highway. 
This has been most edifying to me as I have listened. I thank the 
Senator.
  I recommend to all Senators that they read in the Congressional 
Record the statement that has been made today by Senator Baucus. He 
sits on the authorizing committee, and he has had an opportunity 
because of the jurisdiction of that committee over highways, he has 
invested many years in the study of this subject matter, and it is a 
real privilege to have him part of the Senate. I thank him for 
imparting to me, and I am glad I took the time and sat here and 
listened to him.
  This vast knowledge--I am sure he could speak all afternoon on this 
subject without notes. I thank him. His comments have been very 
helpful. I hope all Senators will read these remarks in the Record and 
that Senators will join in cosponsoring the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner 
amendment.
  If the Senator will allow me 10 more seconds, I ask unanimous consent 
that the following three Senators be added as cosponsors to the Byrd-
Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment numbered 1397 to the bill S. 1173, the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997: Senator Dodd, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Thurmond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend from West Virginia. Nobody has 
worked harder on this issue than he. We all owe him a tremendous debt 
of gratitude for his very fine work.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________