[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 17 (Friday, February 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1147-S1150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1173, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative 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 with a modified
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (Amendment No. 1676).
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from
Missouri is here. It is my understanding that he has an amendment he is
prepared to present. I would just use this opportunity, before we start
on the Senator's amendment, to urge all Senators to come with
amendments.
We are ready to do business here. There are a host of amendments. As
we know, under the ground rules, we are not taking up amendments that
deal with financial matters, but there are a whole host of other
amendments that do not deal with those particular subjects. We would
certainly like to dispose of them. So I do urge all Senators who have
amendments to come to the floor and bring them up.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Rhode Island.
Let me begin by saying it is high time. I am anxious for this bill to
move forward. I am very pleased to be here today with my colleagues to
talk about this very important highway and transportation legislation
and to offer an amendment which I believe has been cleared on both
sides.
Mr. President, this past October, November, I had the pleasure of
working with our distinguished committee chairman, Senator Chafee, and
the subcommittee chairman, and my good friend, Senator Warner, and the
ranking member, Senator Baucus, to forge an interim solution that
produced a short-term extension for this vital highway and
transportation legislation that provided necessary resources to make
certain that the orange cones and barrels that signal highway
construction underway would continue to drive drivers nuts and show
them that progress is being made.
But as already has been pointed out on the floor numerous times over
the last couple weeks, we only passed an extension, one that does
expire. Let me tell my colleagues that getting agreement in passing the
extension was not easy. However, it did give us an idea of the
complexity of what we have ahead of us.
We all know the importance and the role that transportation plays in
our everyday lives and especially in our economy. We absolutely must
improve upon the existing infrastructure--that is, the roads, the
bridges, the transportation systems--and determine better ways to meet
our transportation needs. That is why I worked with the distinguished
chair and ranking member and the subcommittee leaders to produce the
bill that is now pending.
I am very pleased to support and urge the adoption of that measure.
As Senator Chafee said yesterday, this bill was reported unanimously
out of committee--I repeat, unanimously out of committee. This happened
because the bill, called ISTEA II, builds our new policy solidly on our
commitment to the concrete and asphalt reality that roads and bridges
are and will continue to be the foundation of our transportation
system.
Mr. President, for me and for the people of my State of Missouri,
highways are not an academic debate. They are a matter of life and
death. All of us have heard the statistics about how our inadequate
highways contribute to 114 deaths on our Nation's highways each day.
Missouri's highway fatality rate is above the national average. I am
reminded of these tragedies every time I go home. Every time I travel
to a new part of the State, they have lost someone or several people on
the highways.
Missouri has roads designated as part of the National Highway System
that have no shoulders. We have two-lane roads carrying traffic meant
for four lanes. These are real death traps, because somebody who is not
familiar with the road, too often an out-of-State visitor to our State,
makes a mistake and crosses over the center line with tragic
consequences to them and to some other innocent party as well. And our
bridge needs are perhaps greater than any other State.
I drove last Friday over the bridge at Hermann, MO. It is an eerie
feeling driving over a highway bridge and looking down at the river
below and seeing it through the bridge that you are driving over. Mr.
President, that is not fun. That gets your attention. The people know
that these bridges are not going to last forever.
Missouri has too many highways marked with white crosses along the
side where people have died. The white crosses are in memory of the
loved ones who will never return because of our inadequate highways.
Reauthorization of this measure, this highway transportation measure,
is imperative. We must move forward. I know that maintaining our
Nation's roads and bridges is not always a glamorous issue or
undertaking. Too often we hear discussions about priority items that
take our attention away. But as with the debate raging in education
circles about improving our Nation's crumbling schools, so goes the
equally important debate about improving our transportation
infrastructure, our roads and highways and bridges. Here it is lives we
are talking about.
Mr. President, reasonable people do have passionate differences. We
see that every day on the Senate floor. All of us who were here in 1991
can recall that debate can get ugly over those differences, especially
when money is involved. Overall funding has proven to be one of the
difficult issues already, and the floor debates have not even started
on formulas yet.
We all know there are tremendous challenges in meeting our aim of
balancing the budget and our commitment to the American people to do
so. I am ever mindful of and support achieving this goal. However, I do
know the importance of the transportation infrastructure, the roads and
highways and bridges and transportation needs of this country and the
desire to provide for increased funding to meet those needs.
[[Page S1148]]
As a member of the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee and
the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am committed and pledge
my support in working to find a solution that will provide the
increased funding necessary for transportation while maintaining our
commitment to a balanced budget.
I expressed my appreciation to the majority leader, Senator Lott, and
to our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, who are working
together and working with us to provide the resources we need to put
the ``trust'' back in the highway trust fund.
I do support the highway money going for highways and transportation
needs. My goal has always been to increase the size of the overall pie
for highways and transportation and, as well, to increase Missouri's
share. I will do everything possible to ensure that the State of
Missouri gets a full, fair share back.
Maybe S. 404, which is known as the Bond-Chafee Highway Trust Fund
Integrity Act, introduced with the distinguished chairman a year ago,
is part of the overall funding solution. It does not take the highway
trust fund off budget, but it does ensure that the ``trust'' is put
back in the trust fund. That is a goal that I believe we all share.
I hope that negotiations on the overall funding level continue. If we
can get a $28 billion highway program, let us do it. Let us work to
achieve the allocation and the commitment of the highway trust fund
moneys going back to highway trust fund purposes.
Mr. President, unfortunately, when we talk about Federal money and
formulas, there are always clear-cut winners and losers. I know
Missouri has been on both sides, too often on the losing side. But none
of this goes away if we wait. I thank the majority leader and I thank
the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this up.
Now, Mr. President, unless the chairman has other matters, I wish to
introduce an amendment that I believe has been cleared on both sides.
Amendment No. 1677 to amendment no. 1676
(Purpose: To require that, in funding natural habitat and wetland
mitigation efforts related to Federal-aid highway projects, a
preference be given, to the maximum extent practicable, to the use of
certain mitigation banks)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself, Senator Breaux, and Senator Lott and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Mr. Lott
and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 1677.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 181, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 183, line 23, and insert the following:
esses. With respect to participation in a natural habitat or
wetland mitigation effort related to a project funded under
this title that has an impact that occurs within the service
area of a mitigation bank, preference shall be given, to the
maximum extent practicable, to the use of the mitigation bank
if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset
the impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the
Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (November 28, 1995)) or
other applicable Federal law (including regulations).
``(N) Publicly-owned intracity or intercity passenger rail
or bus terminals, including terminals of the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation and publicly-owned intermodal
surface freight transfer facilities, other than seaports and
airports, if the terminals and facilities are located on or
adjacent to National Highway System routes or connections to
the National Highway System selected in accordance with
paragraph (2).
``(O) Infrastructure-based intelligent transportation
systems capital improvements.
``(P) In the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any project
eligible for funding under section 133, any airport, and any
seaport.
``(Q) Publicly owned components of magnetic levitation
transportation systems.''.
SEC. 1235. ELIGIBILITY OF PROJECTS UNDER THE SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.
Section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code (as amended
by section 1232(c)), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and publicly owned
intracity or intercity bus terminals and facilities'' and
inserting ``, including vehicles and facilities, whether
publicly or privately owned, that are used to provide
intercity passenger service by bus or rail'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``and bicycle'' and inserting ``bicycle'';
and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and the modification of public sidewalks to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)'';
(3) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``, publicly owned passenger rail,'' after
``Highway'';
(B) by inserting ``infrastructure'' after ``safety''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and any other noninfrastructure highway safety
improvements'';
(4) in paragraph (11)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by inserting ``natural habitat and'' after
``participation in'' each place it appears;
(ii) by striking ``enhance and create'' and inserting
``enhance, and create natural habitats and''; and
(iii) by inserting ``natural habitat and'' before
``wetlands conservation''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to
participation in a natural habitat or wetland mitigation
effort related to a project funded under this title that has
an impact that occurs within the service area of a mitigation
bank, preference shall be given, to the maximum extent
practicable, to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank
contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact
and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal
Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (November 28, 1995)) or
other applicable Federal law (including regulations).''; and
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment on wetlands mitigation
banking has been cleared by both sides, and has been reviewed by EPA
and the Corps who have no objection. It is, I believe, consistent with
administration policy. It is supported by the Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials and the National Wetlands
Coalition. I believe this amendment is good for wetlands protection. It
promotes private sector efforts to protect wetlands, and it saves money
that can be used on highways or other authorized uses under this act.
This is a win-win-win amendment.
Now, let me tell you what the amendment does. It simply provides,
when highway projects result in impact to wetlands that require
compensatory mitigation--a big word saying: If you take away a wetland
here, you have to restore a wetland there so we do not have any loss of
wetlands. That is required under current law. Here in this amendment we
say that preference can be given, to the extent practical, to private
sector mitigation banks.
The amendment mandates that the banks be approved in accordance with
the administration's Federal guidance on mitigation banking issued in
1993. It requires that the bank be within the service area of the
impacted wetlands.
Mitigation is usually accomplished by restoring or creating other
wetlands. Isolated, on-site mitigation projects are expensive and often
costly to maintain. Wetlands mitigation banks, on the other hand, are
typically large tracts of land that have been restored as wetlands. A
State department of transportation building a highway project which
impacts wetlands near a bank buys ``credits'' generated from the bank
based on the acreage quality of restored wetlands in order to satisfy
its obligation to mitigate the harm to impacted wetlands.
The bank sponsor assumes full responsibility for maintaining the
restored wetland site, and the State Transportation Department has
fulfilled its mitigation requirement and can get on with the work on
much-needed projects.
The amendment does nothing to change the mitigation requirement. It
simply provides that mitigation banking will be the preferred
alternative, where available, once mitigation requirements are found to
exist.
In 1996, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing
where witnesses from the administration, the private sector, the
environmental community, and the scientific community spoke to the
promise of mitigation banking as being an important instrument to
protect wetlands and to do so with less expense and less red tape.
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator in the Office of Water at
EPA,
[[Page S1149]]
testified to ``EPA's strong support for mitigation banking.''
In his testimony, he said, ``It's a unique win-win proposition. It's
great for landowners because it makes the permitting process simpler
and easier. . . . It's great for the environment because the
consolidation of multiple mitigation projects into a single, large
mitigation bank leads to greater environmental benefit in terms of the
enhancement of wildlife habitat and the improvement of local water
quality and flood control.''
I will add that as a matter of policy, we have a great opportunity
with mitigation banking to protect wetlands by making wetlands
protection a profitable private enterprise.
This effort is supported by the Missouri and Ohio Departments of
Transportation and by AASHTO. Let me quote for you a September 1997
letter from the Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation:
ODOT's costs for onsite mitigation have ranged as high as
$150,000 per acre, when cost of design, real estate,
construction and mitigation monitoring are combined. These
costs are not out of line with the high-end costs experienced
by many other DOTs around the country. Our lowest costs for
onsite mitigation have generally exceeded $35,000 per acre.
The cost of banking, in our experience, has ranged from
around $10,000 to $12,000 per acre and includes all of the
above cited cost factors. This equates to about one-quarter
the cost of our average onsite mitigation.
The States of Florida and Illinois, in the Chicago area, have already
had a similar experience.
This savings is significant and it can be achieved because of
specialization and economies of scale. As a result, less federal
highway money is spent on mitigating impacts to wetlands, and more
federal highway money is made available for highway construction.
Many agree that mitigation banks, approved in accordance with
Administration guidance, will have a greater long term rate of success
in protecting wetlands because: (1) they are in the business of
wetlands protection and have the expertise; (2) banks are easier to
regulate and be held accountable; and (3) because there is more time
and flexibility for a bank to identify and procure high quality
wetlands.
I appreciate the assistance of the chairman, Senator Chafee, and
Senator Baucus with this amendment.
Again, this is good for the environment and the efficiencies will
permit more of our precious highway dollars to be spent on highways. I
urge the adoption of this bipartisan amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for an
amendment to the Federal highway bill that is simple and
straightforward.
The amendment improves the environment and it saves federal highway
dollars--two worthy goals.
The amendment establishes a preference for the use of wetlands
mitigation banks to offset impacts to wetlands caused by the
construction of highways funded under the federal highway program.
The amendment is not a mandate. It provides only that mitigation
banking is the preferred alternative for mitigating wetlands impacts
where there is a bank in the area of the highway project.
The amendment is an incentive-based strategy for environmental
protection that enjoys bipartisan support. Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle know that this is the only real way to achieve
compliance.
The amendment is sponsored by my friends and colleagues Senators
Christopher ``Kit'' Bond and John Breaux.
Mitigation banking refers to a large wetlands restoration effort
where a ``bank'' of wetlands, usually 100 acres or more, is undertaken
to compensate in advance for future wetlands losses from nearby
development. The best sites for restoration of wetlands are often lands
that used to be wetlands but were drained in order to plant crops.
Mitigation bankers take a number of steps, such as breaking up drainage
tiles, in order to reintroduce water to the site. Sometimes mitigation
bankers replant native species, but often existing seed banks
revegetate the land naturally once the water has been restored. Before
long, a large, fully functioning wetlands ecosystem has been
reestablished. Under federal guidelines, ``credits'' are generated
based on the acreage and quality of the restored wetlands. The credits
may then be sold to those who must restore wetlands to make up for
those they have been allowed to disturb in order to build their school,
office park, or other nearby project.
In the context of highway construction, mitigation banking works as
follows: a state department of transportation building a highway
project that affects wetlands near a mitigation bank may buy credits
from the mitigation bank. The state DOT fulfills its mitigation
requirement by purchasing sufficient credits from the bank to offset
the loss of wetlands from the project, and the bank sponsor assumes
full responsibility for maintaining the restored wetlands site.
Of course, the current federal highway program already allows federal
funds to be used to mitigate adverse effects on wetlands caused by
highway construction. But small, isolated, on-site mitigation projects
are expensive and costly to maintain given the many small wetlands
affected by a typical new highway project. In contrast, mitigation
banks consolidate small, isolated wetlands mitigation efforts into
large, high quality, diverse wetlands habitat. As a result, mitigation
banks provide greater environmental benefits than piecemeal mitigation.
The Bond-Breaux amendment provides simply that mitigation banking
will be the preferred alternative for wetlands mitigation efforts paid
for with federal highway money where there is a bank in the area of a
highway project. Banks must be approved under the federal guidance on
mitigation banking.
In addition to benefiting the environment, use of mitigation banks
will save federal highway dollars that can be made available for more
highway construction. Experience has clearly demonstrated that private
mitigation bankers can restore high quality wetlands at significantly
less cost than state departments of transportation, as my colleague
from Missouri has pointed out.
This amendment is supported by the Corps of Engineers, EPA, the
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, and
numerous state departments of transportation. Even my own State of
Mississippi believes this is a smart environmental idea and a smart
highway idea.
It doesn't surprise me that this amendment is sponsored by the
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, Senator Bond's creative mind has
produced an innovative answer to this thorny environmental policy. All
Americans know the value of wetlands and recognize the contributions of
an effective transportation infrastructure. Mr. Bond has found a way to
balance the problems and provide a smart solution.
Mr. Bond has provided a win-win solution. His amendment encourages
the investment of private sector resources and technology in wetlands
restoration. It establishes a policy that rewards doing the right thing
for the environment. I congratulate the Senator for his foresight, good
judgment, and leadership.
I am also not surprised to see the Senator from Louisiana, Mr.
Breaux, joining Senator Bond in sponsoring this amendment. I citizens
of Louisiana know what wetlands are because most of their state is
classified as one. They know this type of public policy is a smart way
to do highway business. I also commend my friend from Louisiana for his
leadership on this amendment.
Mr. President, in closing, this is an excellent amendment that will
save federal highway dollars, benefit the environment, and allow
federal highway projects to go forward more quickly and with more
certainty. It has my strong support, and deserves that of my
colleagues.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Missouri for
this amendment. It is an excellent one. What it will do is have a
wetland of a larger size than would be under normal conditions. When
they do damage to a wetland, they create a new wetland next to the
highway. To have it in the so-called mitigation bank is a far superior
way of operating, and I commend the Senator.
The amendment will improve the mitigation that is done to offset the
[[Page S1150]]
loss and degradation of wetlands as a result of highway projects. We
have suffered unacceptable wetlands losses--more than half of the
estimated 220 million acres that existed when the nation was founded
have been lost.
Transportation has unintended but negative consequences on the
nation's wetlands. The original ISTEA recognized this by establishing
wetlands mitigation as an eligible expense of a State's highway
construction funds. Mitigation banking is an innovative concept that
allows a person who wishes to fill a wetlands to compensate for that
loss by obtaining credits representing positive wetlands function
generated at a nearby site. It is the perfect example of a forward-
looking environmental policy that offers more bang for the buck.
With respect to highway construction, mitigation banking offers
several potential advantages over on-site, individual mitigation. A
mitigation bank, unlike on-site mitigation, can consolidate wetlands
compensation where it is most ecologically beneficial. Moreover,
mitigation banking helps to achieve the goal of ``no net loss'' of the
Nation's wetlands by providing additional opportunities to compensate
for impacted wetlands. So I thank Senators Bond and Breaux again for
their work on this.
We are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all want to protect wetlands, and we
know when highways are constructed that wetlands are often in jeopardy.
It is in the law that when a highway is constructed which does
jeopardize a wetland, an offset must be provided for; that is, the
developer or the contractor has to find some other way to enhance or
improve the wetland.
This is another step in that direction. It is a step toward greater
efficiency, namely, where someone may enhance, develop a wetland, get
credit for it, and the contractor comes along and goes to the bank
which already has the credit for the wetland. It is a much more
efficient process for getting the job done. I compliment the Senator
from Missouri for coming up with this idea. We accept the amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1677) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for accepting the Bond-
Breaux amendment to S. 1173. It has been my privilege to cosponsor the
proposal with the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and to continue
our work together on wetlands-related issues.
I express my deepest appreciation to the Majority Leader, Senator
Lott, and to the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member, Senator Chafee
and Senator Baucus, for their support. I also look forward to working
with them on this issue as the intermodal surface transportation bill
advances through Congress.
The Bond-Breaux amendment proposes to establish a reasonable,
responsible wetlands and natural habitat mitigation policy as part of
the federal aid highway program.
Our language says that mitigation banking shall be the preferred
means, to the maximum extent practicable, to mitigate for wetlands or
natural habitat which are affected as part of a federal-aid highway
project and whose mitigation is paid for with federal funds.
The amendment establishes three criteria which are to be met in order
to use a mitigation bank: first, the affected wetlands or natural
habitat are to be in a bank's service area; second, the bank has to
have enough credits available to offset the impact; and third, the bank
has to meet federally-approved standards.
The Bond-Breaux amendment does not mandate the use of mitigation
banks nor does it say they shall be the sole means or the only method
used to mitigate for wetlands or natural habitat affected by a federal-
aid highway project.
Mitigation banks can offer advantages when built and operated
responsibly, including achieving economies of scale and providing
larger, higher-quality diverse habitat.
Again, I'm pleased to join with Senator Bond in sponsoring the
amendment, pleased that it has been accepted as part of S. 1173, and
appreciative of the support extended for it by Senator Lott, Senator
Chafee and Senator Baucus.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Missouri.
I see no other individual prepared to offer an amendment. I urge
Senators to come to the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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 ask that I be allowed to speak out of
order for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________