Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1298-S1333]
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.
Pending:

Lautenberg Amendment No. 1682 (to Amendment No. 1676), to
prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic beverage
container, or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in
the passenger area of a vehicle on a public highway.

Ammendment No. 1682

Mr. CHAFEE. How much time will the Senator from Minnesota need?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take 3 minutes.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, and
the Senator from Rhode Island wants 5 minutes, and the Senator from
Illinois wants 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 10:30 is now evenly divided.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today
to add my voice to those of my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg and
DeWine, in support of this amendment to require states to pass .08
blood alcohol content (BAC) laws.
People who drive while they are impaired are placing all of us in
harm's way. The real issue is whether or not a person should be driving
after consuming alcohol. There is no good reason that this should be
accepted as a standard practice in our society.
Opponents to this amendment will argue such things as ``this means
that a 120-pound woman could not drive after drinking two glasses of
wine''. I believe they are missing the point. The point is that if a
person is impaired by alcohol, he or she should not be driving--period.
The point is that someone's BAC might reach .08 after consumption of a
certain amount of alcohol, and that BAC level might just be indicative
of physical impairment that would affect driving ability. We are not
talking about someone being fallen-down drunk, but perhaps a young
woman whose reaction time might be slowed, so that as a young child
darts out into the street in front of her car, she is unable to react
quickly, enough to hit the brakes in time to stop the car from hitting
the child. Was this woman ``drunk''? No, but the alcohol in her body
slowed her reaction time.
Here are some facts from the National Institute on Alcohol and
Alcohol Abuse at NIH that help to explain the issue:
The brain's control of eye movements is highly vulnerable to alcohol.
In driving, the eye must focus briefly on important objects and track
them as they and the vehicle being driven move. BAC's of .03 to .05 can
interfere with these eye movements.
Steering is a complex task in which the effects of alcohol on eye-to-
hand reaction time are super-imposed upon the effects on vision,
studies have shown that significant impairment in steering ability may
begin at a BAC as low as .04.
Alcohol impairs nearly every aspect of information processing by the
brain. Alcohol-impaired drivers require more time to read a street sign
or to respond to a traffic signal than unimpaired drivers. Research on
the effects of alcohol on performance by both automobile and aircraft
operators shows a narrowing of the attention field starting at a BAC of
approximately .04.
The National Public Services Research Institute reports the
following:
Approximately 10 percent of miles driven at BAC's of .08 and above
are at BAC's between .08 and .10. Every year, crashes that involve
drivers at BAC's of .08 to .99 kill 660 people and injure 28,000.
Driving with a BAC of .08 is very risky. They estimate that crash
costs average $5.80 per mile driven with a BAC of .10 or higher, $2.50
a mile for a BAC between .08 and .99, and only 11 cents a mile for each
mile driven while sober.
The preliminary evaluation of the .08 legislation by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicates that this law will
reduce alcohol-related fatalities by 5 to 8 percent. This is at least
comparable to the impact of other laws such as zero tolerance for
youth, administrative license revocation or graduated licensing.
The evidence is clear. There is no good argument against the .08
legislation. In fact, responsible alcohol distributors and
manufacturers should favor it. There is no excuse not to implement a
law that could decrease traffic fatalities by 600 each year, and
decrease traffic-related injuries by many thousands. We need to be
responsible and encourage the implementation of .08 legislation in all
states, and to provide incentive for doing so.
Mr. President, again, I want to add my voice to my colleagues,
Senator Lautenberg and Senator DeWine, and support this amendment to
require States to pass the .08 blood alcohol content law.
Mr. President, people who drive while they are impaired are placing
all of us in harm's way. That is really the issue. Now, opponents of
this amendment have argued that this is going to mean such a thing as,
``A 120-pound woman could not drive after drinking two glasses of
wine.'' I believe they miss the point. The point is, if a person is
impaired by alcohol, he or she should not be driving, period.
There are some important facts laid out by the National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse. It lays out clearly why this amendment is so important.
The evidence is really clear. There is no good reason and no good
argument to be against this .08 legislation. In fact, responsible
alcohol distributors and manufacturers should favor it.
There is no excuse not to implement a law that could decrease
fatalities by 600 each year and decrease traffic-related injuries by
many thousands. We need to be responsible, and we need to encourage the
implementation of the .08 legislation in all States and to provide
those States incentives for doing so. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. President, on a personal note, I want to thank Minnesota Mothers
Against Drunk Driving for all that they have done to educate all of us
in my State, including me as a Senator. I have been at their
gatherings, and I say to my colleague, Senator Lott, I absolutely
accept what he says in the best of faith. I know he is committed to the
general concept. But I believe, after spending time with these families
who have lost so many loved ones in these accidents, that we ought to
be as tough as possible. This is a matter of public health. We ought to
make sure that we have as few people driving who are impaired from
alcohol as possible around our country. This is an issue for our
national community. This is a

[[Page S1299]]

matter of public health. This is protection for families in our
country. This is the right thing to do. I hope we get a strong majority
vote for this amendment.

I yield the floor.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lautenberg-
DeWine amendment, and I commend both Senators for this excellent
amendment. It would, as previous speakers have discussed, establish a
.08 blood alcohol concentration level, or BAC level, as a threshold for
driving under the influence throughout the United States.
As we all know, drunk driving is a scourge on the highways of the
United States of America. It is something that we are all against. This
legislation would take a very positive step to ensure that all States
provide for a very rigorous .08 blood alcohol content standard as their
measure of driving under the influence of alcohol.
This law builds on previous success. Since 1986, alcohol-related
fatalities on our roads have decreased by 28 percent. That is a result
of the efforts of many, many people. It is the result of tougher laws,
increased enforcement, public education, and particularly the work of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have done so much to illustrate this
problem and reach policymakers throughout the United States. Although
we are proud of this success, we can and must do more.
In 1996, more than 17,000 people were killed because of drunk
driving. Now, these deaths are not accidents because these are
tragedies that could have been avoided--many of them--if we had tougher
laws and better enforcement. That is what we are about today. We are
trying to declare throughout this country that we have a tough standard
for those who would drink and drive, a standard that would save lives
throughout this country in every community.
I don't think any of my colleagues would like to say to a family who
lost a loved one and tell them, ``Well, the standard of .10 was OK,''
because in that situation it's not OK. We can do better. We know these
laws work, and we want to make them work much, much better.
In essence, the .08 blood alcohol concentration standard means fewer
deaths on the roads of America, fewer driving fatalities, fewer young
people cut down in the prime of their lives, and it means a safer
America. That is what we should stand for today.
Currently, 15 States already have adopted a .08 blood alcohol
concentration standard. A recent study by Boston University showed that
these States experienced a 16 percent decline in fatal driver crashes
where the driver's BAC was .08 or greater. Already these States have
shown that this standard saves lives. And we can do better.

It is estimated that nationally, if we adopt the .08 standard, we can
save between 500 and 600 lives a year. Those are impressive statistics.
But lives alone are not at stake. Each year drunk driving accidents
cost this country $45 billion. That is six times more than we spend on
Pell grants. We can do better. We can save lives. We can save
resources. We can make our world much, much safer.
There are those who argue that this would put a huge constraint on
law-abiding Americans who occasionally will have a drink and then
drive. That is something I don't think is true at all because under
this standard a 170-pound man must consume more than four drinks in an
hour on an empty stomach to reach this BAC. A woman of 135 pounds would
have to consume three drinks. That is not social drinking. That is
drinking irresponsibly, and then getting into an automobile.
This law will not affect the reasonable, rational, careful,
deliberate person who may have one social drink or two and then drive.
In fact, the American Medical Association said that really the
beginning of impairment is not .08, it is .05 blood alcohol content. So
this standard is far from what medical experts would argue is the
beginning of deterioration of motor skills when one drives an
automobile. We can do better. We have to recognize today that we must
do better.
There are those of my colleagues who have suggested that this
proposal is an improper infringement on the prerogatives of the States.
First of all, we have taken positive steps before in this land. For
example, just a few years ago we adopted through congressional action a
zero-tolerance policy that would say for young people driving that the
blood alcohol content was basically zero, that they should have no
drinks if they are driving an automobile, and we have seen success
already.
Mr. President, we have already seen the success of our zero-tolerance
policy throughout the United States, a policy that was promulgated
through Congress and adopted by many States, where fatalities at night
by younger drivers have dropped 16 percent in States that are following
the zero-tolerance policy.
So this law and this approach is not an impermissible imposition on
the States. It is a rational, reasonable way to encourage what is the
right thing to do. It is small comfort that if one State, such as my
State of Rhode Island, adopts this standard but it is not adopted next
door in Massachusetts or Connecticut, and someone in Massachusetts
comes speeding into my State. That is not a States' rights issue. That
is an issue of interstate commerce, of national economy, of national
highways that reach every corner of this country regardless of State
lines. We don't stop the national highways at the State lines. We
shouldn't stop good, sensible bills that will control drunk driving in
this country at the State lines.
I urge passage of this legislation, and again commend Senators
Lautenberg and DeWine for their excellent effort.
I yield my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes against
the amendment to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regretfully I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I say regretfully because if I were in the State Senate of
Oklahoma, I would vote in favor of this amendment. Presently, there is
no Federal standard or Federal law for blood alcohol level--none. So we
have an effort now to federalize a national problem. I don't think we
should do that.
I led the effort years ago that would allow the States to set speed
limits. I thought the States should set the speed limits, not the
Federal Government. I didn't say that I thought every State should
increase their speed limits. I thought States should set the speed
limit.

What about the alcohol level? Again, if I were a State legislator, I
would support the lower level. Fifteen States have this level--.08.
Maybe it should be lower. Let the States make that decision. I hate to
federalize problems, and I hate to tell the States that if they don't
do such and such we are going to withhold 10 percent of their money, or
5 percent of their money the first few years and 10 percent thereafter.
Whose money is it? Is that Federal money? No. That money is paid for
by our constituents, by our consumers, and by our people who are on the
road. They pay that money. It comes to Washington, DC, and now we start
putting strings on it. We basically tell the States if you do not pass
a law that we have determined is best--and I don't know anything about
blood alcohol limits. I have heard three beers, I have heard four
beers. I don't know. I have not done the homework. I will take their
word for it. But really, should we be dictating or mandating that on
the States? I don't think so. And tell the States if they don't pass
such and such, we are going to withhold 5 percent of their funds.
We are talking about millions and millions--hundreds of millions--of
dollars. In a few years, it will be 10 percent. So it is a real heavy
penalty if they don't subscribe to our Federal dictate. I just disagree
with that. That money came from the States. It came from individuals.
This is not Federal money. For us to put on these strings, I think is a
mistake.
I am very sympathetic to the goal of the authors of the amendment,
and I compliment them for trying to say we want to reduce drunken
drivers on the streets. I want to do the same thing. I just do not
agree with their tactics.

[[Page S1300]]

The Commerce Committee amendment has some incentives to encourage
States to lower levels, and if the States lower those levels, they can
get more money. In other words, a little bit of a carrot. This is a
heavy stick. As a matter of fact, this is more than a heavy stick. This
is a dagger. This says you have to do it. I think we should encourage
it.
Again, I go back to the Constitution. Sometimes we ignore the
Constitution. But the 10th amendment to the Constitution says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Time and time again we come to this body and we find a problem. And
drunk driving is a real serious problem. But we want to have a Federal
solution: The Federal Government knows best. I think the framers of the
Constitution were right when they said we should reserve those powers
to the States and to the people, and encourage the States--maybe even
give them a little bonus--if they make some moves that we think would
be positive. But to federalize it and now, for the first time in
history, have a blood alcohol content which has always been the
prerogative of the States, in my opinion, is wrong.
I can count the votes. My guess is that the proponents probably have
the votes.
But I think, again, we are trampling on States' rights. We are also
trampling on this idea or encouraging this idea that if there is a
problem, we need a Federal solution, and we will not give back your
money. I resented that when I was a State legislator. I resented the
fact that when we sent our highway moneys to Washington, DC, from our
State, we only got about 80 cents back. That bothered me. We would only
get about 80 cents on the dollar back. Then, not only that, when we got
the 80 cents back, we got all the strings attached: You have to have
the Federal highway speed limit; you have to have all of these other
Federal requirements; you have to have the Davis-Bacon standard. You
have to pass all of these rules. By the time we complied with those
rules, that dollar would only buy about 60 some cents' worth of road.
It wasn't a very good deal for our State.
So I would like to not put more punitive actions on the States if
they don't comply with what we think--Government knows best.
Again, I want to compliment the authors. But I think this is an
intrusion into States and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
amendment.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator
from Montana.
Let me at the outset salute my colleagues, Senator Frank Lautenberg
of New Jersey and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, who are, on a bipartisan
basis, offering an amendment today which is critically important to the
safety of American families.
America has learned the dangers of drunk driving. Americans
understand that we lose one of our neighbors, or one of our children,
or one of our friends, or one of the people we work with every 30
minutes to a drunk driver--every 30 minutes. America understands that
this law which we are debating will save 500 to 600 lives each year. It
will spare countless parents, spouses, and friends from the senseless
tragedy of drunk driving deaths.
America understands. Does the U.S. Senate understand? The vote will
answer the question in just a few moments.
Let me address the issue of States rights. I don't believe this
debate is about States rights. I think it is time, in this particular
situation, to reject this well-worn argument when it comes to saving
lives.
I can remember this argument about States rights a few years ago when
I served in the House because there was a hodgepodge of standards
around the United States. In some States you could drink at the age of
18, some at the age of 21, and we decided to make it uniform. The
States said this is a mistake, that the Federal Government shouldn't to
it, that it is the heavy hand of Central Government trying to impose
its will on States. Of course, it made no sense.
In my home State of Illinois, where the kids at night would drive
across the border to Wisconsin and drink legally and then drive home
drunk, killing themselves and innocent people, it made no sense. We
rejected it. We said it will be a national uniform standard drinking
age of 21. What we are saying here is that we will have a national
uniform standard when it comes to drunk driving.
This debate is not about protecting States rights. This debate is
about protecting families that live in every State. It is about
protecting families who go on vacation from State to State and worry
about their safety. It is about people who go to the store and think it
is just a casual trip in the car and find, because of a drunk driver,
that a fatal accident or a serious accident resulting. That is what
this debate is really about. Families that cross State lines shouldn't
fear that there is more danger in one State or the other to drunk
drivers.
I think we have to react to the reality of the number of Americans
who are losing their lives each year because of drunk driving.
The New York Times probably said it best in the title to its
editorial: ``One Nation, Drunk or Sober.'' Should it be a different
standard in each State because of the issue of States rights? Can you
imagine going to the funeral home, can you imagine meeting with the
grieving parents, or the students when someone has lost a classmate,
and saying, ``I am sorry we cannot do more on drunk driving because it
is an issue of States rights?'' How empty that argument sounds when we
are talking about saving lives.
When you look at the groups that are supporting this, listen to what
the Wall Street Journal has to say. This is no liberal organization. It
is pretty conservative. And they say:

Safe alcohol levels should be set by health experts,
not the lobby for Hooters and Harrah's. The Lautenberg-
DeWine-Lowey amendment isn't a drive toward prohibition
but an uphill push toward health consensus.

Then go to the experts--not only the health experts--who will tell
you that the impairment of drivers at .08 is a serious matter. They
estimate that some 40 percent of all of the alcohol-related accidents
occur with people who have been drinking and have imbibed at a level
that doesn't quite reach .10 but is at .08, and still is very serious.
Then, of course, go beyond the health experts. Talk to the law
enforcement people--the people who respond to these accidents, the
people who have to see the tragedy when someone makes a terrible
decision to drink and drive and, as a consequence, lives are lost and
people are injured. They stand shoulder to shoulder begging us to pass
this Lautenberg-DeWine amendment, as does the organization, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving.
I want to salute them especially. This is the type of political
movement in America which is really, I guess, unique to our country;
people who have been touched by tragedy come together and say, ``Let's
make a difference; let's spare other lives that might be lost.''
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Students Against Drunk Driving in
Illinois and around the Nation have really led this debate.
I am happy to stand in support of the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment. I
think doing this will not only save lives, but it will put to rest once
and for all this empty argument that this is really about States
rights. This is about much more. It is about the rights of every family
in every State to get on the highway and to realize that they can be
safe.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I, in control of the opponents' time,
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman for the
time.
Mr. President, we are here again talking about an issue that seems to
come up every time there are highway bills and highway funds to be
distributed. We always come up with this question of process, of who
has the responsibility to make the kinds of laws that would be there.
I am disappointed that some of the speakers just previous have
indicated

[[Page S1301]]

they don't think the States have the ability to make the decisions,
that they don't think the State legislatures feel as passionately about
drunken driving as we do. I think they do. I have been there. To say,
``Well, this is something the States simply can't do, or aren't capable
of doing, or don't care about,'' it seems to me is not fair or
balanced.
I think we ought to talk about the process here. And the process is,
how do we best deal with States as a Federal entity, in this case, with
highway funding? This isn't the first kind of mandate that has been
applied. Every time this comes up we have mandates, whether it be
highways, helmets, whether it be speed limits--which, by the way, were
put on in a similar kind of process and were changed later because it
didn't work very well.
There is no one in this place or no one that I know of in the whole
country who doesn't want to do more about preserving safety in
driving. There is no one here who cares more about the losses that we
have. That is not the issue here. The issue is process, procedure, and
what is the proper role in doing it. I think we ought to consider
incentives, and we have done that; $25 million of incentives here for
the States to do this. But instead we move towards penalties.

We have been through this a number of times, and we are back at it
again. I think we ought to give the leadership. And the President wants
to give leadership on this issue. Why doesn't he do that as President?
We can do that. If this is the proper level, and I do not disagree with
it, I would support it in my State, my State legislature. But the
process is what we are talking about. Should this body say to the
States, ``Look, if you want the money that your people pay into the
fund, if you want it back, then you have to do what the Congress
prescribes"? It is not as if the money came from somewhere else. This
money came from the States.
So it is a difficult one and I, frankly, have misgivings about even
rising to talk about it, but I do think the system is important. The
process is important here, and we ought to really consider it over a
period of time, as to how much of this sort of thing we do. We do it
each time this arises.
So I think we ought to put on all the pressure that we can. I think
we ought to have all the incentives that are possible to move towards
safer driving, to move toward doing something about drunk driving
losses. But I think we also ought to ask ourselves about where do we
stop in this idea of penalizing the States if they do not properly
adhere to what this body proclaims they ought to do.
So I appreciate very much the opportunity for us to debate this. I
am, of course, a great supporter of this bill, and hope we can move
forward with it. I, frankly, hope we can do it without encumbering it
with mandates of any kind. I thought we were going to be able to do
that this year. The fact is the committee, I think it is fair to say,
probably wasn't in support of doing it and therefore it did not come
out of the committee that way. But now, of course, we are continuing to
work on it. So I hope we can find additional ways, other ways,
incentives to move towards .08. I have no objection to that. On the
contrary, I support it.
On the other hand, I do think it is necessary for us, over time, to
take a strong look at the kinds of processes and procedures that we
impose on the States. I am sorry I cannot make as light of States
rights as has been made on the floor this morning, as if it does not
pertain. It does, in fact, pertain. And we have different kinds of
conditions.
Mr. President, I appreciate the time, I thank the chairman for his
time, and I look forward to the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I urge opponents, please come to the
floor. We have something like 25 minutes left on the opponents' time.
Here is the opportunity that they have to speak. So I urge any
opponents who wish to speak to come quickly to the floor. Now is the
chance to voice their opposition to the amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Senator from Ohio has been looking for
some time. I ask the Senator how much time he needs.
Mr. DeWINE. Let me inquire, if I could, how much time the proponents
have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have a little over 10 minutes.
The opponents have a little over 15 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the chairman of the committee, the Senator from
Rhode Island, whether or not, if he does not have any opposition
speakers, he might help us out with a few minutes?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes; I will be glad to. If there is nobody here who
wishes to speak against, and we have time left, I am certainly glad to
yield.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from Ohio, 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I appreciate some of the very eloquent
comments that have been made this morning on the Senate floor. I
appreciate the comments about States rights. Let me say, though, that
there are very few times when we, as Members of the Senate, can come to
the floor and cast our votes when we will know that the vote we cast
will save lives. That is true in this case. There is absolutely no
doubt about it. Lives will be saved and families will be spared the
heartache of losing a child or mother or father.
There are other things I think we clearly know and that are not in
dispute. That is one. The second is that no one has come to the floor
suggesting that a person who tests .08 has any business being behind
the wheel of a car. That is not really in dispute at all. No doctor who
has looked at this, no emergency room doctor who has looked at it, no
police officer who is involved in testing people, pulling them over and
seeing what they test and looking at their reflexes, looking at how
they act --everyone who has had that experience agrees--at .08, no one
should be behind the wheel. If anyone has a doubt about it, think of it
this way: If you were at a party and someone had four beers in an hour
and you watched him drink those four beers in an hour, and you observed
he didn't have anything to eat, four beers in 1 hour, and he looked
over after that time and said, ``Let me take your little 5-year-old
daughter''--my daughter, a 5-year-old, is named Anna--``Let me take her
up to the Tastee-Freez and buy her an ice cream cone; I'll drive her
up.'' How many of us would put her in that car? We would not do that.
There is no doubt about it. So it is absolutely a reasonable standard.
Does it include social drinkers? We are not talking about one or two
beers and a pizza. We are talking about people who have absolutely no
business behind the wheel of a car.
I think Ronald Reagan did say it best. I think he had it right in
1984. He supported a similar type concept, and that concept was that
there should be a minimum standard across the country for the drinking
age, and it should be 21 no matter where you were in the country. He
supported that. The great champion of States rights said in this case a
national uniform standard will save lives and makes common sense. This
is what Ronald Reagan said in 1984 when he signed the bill:

This problem is much more than just a State problem. It's a
national tragedy. There are some special cases in which
overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited
Federal influence. In a case like this I have no misgivings
about a judicious use of Federal inducements to save precious
lives.

It is a minimum standard. It is a rational standard. Doesn't it make
sense that when you get in your car and put your family in the car and
go on a trip--many of us cross two or three State lines every week;
every day, some of us--doesn't it make sense there should be some
assurance that there is a minimum standard that exists, no matter where
you drive your car in this country? Doesn't that make sense? I think it
does.
So, I think it is a question--yes, it is a question of rights. The
rights of families, the right to live, the right to have a fair chance
on the highway not to have someone come at you who has been drinking
and driving. That is what this is all about.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment in the vote

[[Page S1302]]

that will take place in 20 or 25 minutes. It is a rare opportunity
among all the things we debate, all the rhetoric--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield another minute to the Senator
from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. It is a rare opportunity to save lives. I urge my
colleagues to take this rare opportunity and spare a family, spare
hundreds of families, life's greatest tragedy, and that is the loss of
a loved one.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Dewine to implement
a nationwide .08 blood alcohol level requirement for DUI offenses.
Let me begin by saying that I agree with those who say alcohol
consumption--and how much is enough--should be a matter of personal
responsibility. Adults should have the common sense to know when enough
is enough and when not to get behind the wheel.
Tragically, however, the statistics show common sense is not that
common.
In California, we already have the .08 standard and still the
accident rates are staggering. According the California Highway Patrol,
there were 91,654 DUI arrests and 37,622 DUI accidents in 1996. Also in
that year, there were 1,254 fatalities and 35,654 injuries due to DUI-
related accidents. Let me remind you this is with the standard we are
pushing for in this bill.
To put these statistics in perspective, in California there were
3,555 total traffic fatalities in 1996. Nearly 40 percent of the
traffic fatalities in California in 1996 were alcohol related. I
understand this is consistent with the national average which show that
41 percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
According to a MADD survey, 68.8 Americans support lowering the legal
blood alcohol limit to .08. That same survey showed that 53 percent of
Americans consider drunk drivers to be the nation's number one highway
safety problem.
However, when you cut through the numbers, this is really an issue
about saving lives and about personal safety. Every American--no matter
where they live--has a right to feel safe on our highways. I believe
tough DUI laws, including strict blood alcohol limits, do reduce drunk
driving and do make our roads safer.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, drunk drivers are a menace to all of us.
Last September, a car driven by an alcohol-impaired teenager went off
the road near Montpelier, Vermont, killing teenagers Brian Redmond and
Ryan Kitchen. This was a rare enough tragedy in Vermont that it sent
the entire state into mourning. Nationwide, however, the story is far
different. More than 40 percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol-
related--more than 17,000 in 1996 alone.
I am proud that Vermont is one of only 15 states that already has a
.08 blood alcohol standard. Vermonters have a longstanding awareness of
the dangers of drunk driving, and I advocated adoption of the toughest
state drunk driving laws in the nation while serving as State's
Attorney in Chittenden County. Today, Vermont has a state law which
lowers the threshold for drivers under the age of 21 to .02 percent,
one of the toughest laws in the nation.
The amendment which we are considering will establish a .08 standard
in all 50 states. If enacted, states will have three years to enact .08
laws, or they will have a portion of their highway construction funds
withheld. With all due respect to the cosponsors of this amendment, I
have reservations about this approach. I have always been a senator who
believes that, whenever possible, Congress should respect each state's
right to govern itself. I am uncomfortable when we in Washington say
that we will penalize states financially when they do not behave as we
see fit. I think we in Congress use that threat too often. Instead of
punishments, we should offer incentives for states to adopt tougher
drinking and driving laws. It would be better to offer supplemental
transportation resources to those states that meet a higher standard.
The rest of the states would follow soon enough once they see their
neighbors benefitting from doing the right thing.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that Senator Lautenberg's amendment will
save lives, just as the .08 standard has saved lives in Vermont.
Although this amendment will not directly affect Vermont, I will vote
for it. I am convinced that we can send a strong signal to all
Americans that there should be one standard for drinking and driving.
This nation has made some progress in the war on drinking and driving,
and with this legislation we can save still more lives.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I share the concern of my colleagues from
New Jersey and Ohio, and all the cosponsors of this amendment.
I am in complete agreement with the view that there should be a no
tolerance policy for drinking and driving. That kind of
irresponsibility is inexcusable; the senseless human tragedy it
produces is unpardonable. Our laws should be severe enough to deter
anyone who thinks he or she can abuse alcohol and drive without
impairment. Our law enforcement officials should have the tools they
need to locate and stop these accidents waiting to happen.
My state of Idaho is one of the states that has already adopted a
blood alcohol content standard of .08 percent. They believed this was a
reasonable standard, based on sound data, that would help save lives.
Other states have come to the same conclusion and made the same choice.
And that brings me to my point.
While I would support a strong resolution from this Senate denouncing
drunk driving or even recommending the adoption of this particular
blood alcohol content standard, I cannot endorse this amendment. The
federal government should leave this decision to the states, where it
constitutionally belongs in the first place.
I am confident if the facts truly support it, this standard will be
adopted voluntarily by every state. However, I am not willing to say
today that this is the one and only way to solve the terrible problem
of drunk driving, nor that it is the best way. We've heard a lot on
this floor and from the administration about how our states are
``laboratories of ideas.'' Instead of burdening them with new federal
mandates, we should be ensuring they have the maximum freedom and
flexibility to work out effective solutions for local problems,
especially problems of this magnitude.
In short, transportation dollars that are critical to public safety
should not be threatened in order to force states into compliance with
the ``solution of the day''--no matter how well intended.
While I strongly agree with the goal of stopping drunk driving in
America, I strongly disagree with the path this amendment would take to
achieve that goal. For all of these reasons, I have no alternative but
to vote against this amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bi-partisan
amendment introduced by Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. DeWine to set a national
illegal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of .08 for drivers over age
21. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the bill upon which this
amendment is based.
Mr. President, the drunk driving problem is a national disgrace. Its
severe emotional and financial costs to society are staggering. In
1996, more than 17,000 Americans died in alcohol-related crashes. That
means someone in America loses a loved one every 30 seconds to a driver
who is drunk. In 1996, more than 321,000 persons were injured in
crashes where police report that alcohol was present.
When you count up the health care costs, lost work, and other
economic impacts, alcohol-related crashes also add up to a monetary
loss to society of more than $44 billion every year. It's not
surprising that a recent survey by Allstate identified drunk driving as
the #1 highway safety problem in the eyes of a majority of Americans.
We know that the physical and mental abilities of virtually all
drivers are impaired at .08. This impairment includes critical driving
tasks such as vision, balance, reaction time and hearing, judgement,
and the ability to concentrate. The heightened risk of a crash starts
with the first drink, but rises rapidly when BAC is as high as .08. For
example, the National Highway

[[Page S1303]]

Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that, in single-vehicle
crashes, the relative risk for drivers with a BAC between .05 and .09
is more than 11 times greater than for drivers with no alcohol in their
systems.
Although setting a minimum BAC isn't the only answer to our national
drunk driving problem, it's a necessary part of the solution. Studies
show that .08 actually has saved lives where it is law by deterring
unsafe drinking behavior. In fact, figures show that even heavy
drinkers, who account for a large number of drunk driving arrests, are
less likely to get behind the wheel because of .08 laws. We also should
remember that .08 makes it easier for police and courts to do their
jobs--they are less likely accept excuses when faced with offenders who
have BAC levels at or around .10.
A national strategy to require driver safety measures like this one
has worked before. We have seen, for example, how earlier national laws
that require seat belts and mandate zero tolerance for drinking and
driving under age 21 dramatically have reduced driving fatalities. More
than an estimated 16,000 lives have been saved since 1975 by the 21
drink age law. It also is very important to remember that the concept
of .08 is not new or radical. 15 States already have adopted .08. Many
industrialized nations have even lower legal limits ranging from .02 to
.08.
Don't be misled by those who may argue that .08 laws prohibit
reasonable alcohol consumption. Such is not the experience of States
that have adopted this law. To be legally drunk under a .08 standard, a
170-pound male must consume four and a half drinks in an hour and on an
empty stomach. That's not what I consider social drinking and that's
just not the kind of behavior that most of us who drive would consider
safe.
Mr. President, we need .08 BAC as a national limit. Having one
mandatory national standard doesn't permit confusion about what's safe
and what's reasonable. Pedestrians, passengers, and safe drivers all
need protection from drunk drivers no matter where they live.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the Lautenberg amendment
have about 4\1/2\ minutes. Those opposed have about 15 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself such time as
we have available, with the hope that when the Senator from Rhode
Island returns we will be able to--will the Senator from Rhode Island
allow 5 minutes to me at this juncture if there is no one else?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. I think the Senator has a little time left. Why
doesn't he consume that and go into our time for the remainder?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. OK.
Mr. CHAFEE. I think we will have plenty of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself as much time as I have available.
First, I ask unanimous consent we add Senator Hollings as a cosponsor
of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are getting to the point where we
are going to wrap up this debate. I thank my friend and colleague from
Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, for his support, his commitment, and his
work on this issue. He has fought tenaciously to reduce drunk driving.
I hope he and I at the end of this debate will be able to shake hands
on behalf of the American people and say we have done something good
this morning.
I remind our colleagues, as I listen to the debate, about the issues
that I hear being discussed. Frankly, it bewilders me, because I stand
next to the picture of a child who was 9 when a drunk driver took her
life. I hear discussions of process, that the process is the issue. The
process is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we want to say to
every American parent, ``We have done something more to save, perhaps,
your child or your grandchild or your sister or your brother.'' That is
the issue, and that is, I hope, what the American people are going to
say when they look at the vote count and say, ``My Senator stood up for
life.''
``My Senator,'' on the other hand, they can brag, ``proudly, stood up
for process.''
Can you imagine in the homes across America, all the people who are
going to be applauding because someone stood up for process? It is
outrageous. It cannot be that way.
In the balcony sit people I have come to know, people I have come to
know very well: Brenda, Randy and Stephanie Frazier--mother, father and
sister of Ashley.
I wish I could ask them to speak about their view of process, whether
or not they think that process is the thing that we ought to be talking
about. Or should we be talking about the loss that they had, that they
do not want anyone else to experience.
Before Senators vote on this amendment, I ask them to think about
their children and think about the pain that could come from the loss
of a child they know and love. Today we can spare parents across this
country, in all 50 States, the grief experienced by the Frazier family.
Mr. President, I hope that the happy hour is over for drunk drivers.
Every year in this country more people are killed in alcohol-related
crashes than were killed in our worst year of fighting in Vietnam. And
the country stood in national mourning at that time. By lowering to .08
the blood alcohol level at which a person is considered legally drunk,
we can save more than 500 lives each year.
Mr. President, drunk driving is a crime, a crime like assault, like
shooting at someone, like murder; and it should be treated with the
same severity as other crimes that bring harm or death to another
person. We can prevent many injuries and deaths that result from drunk
driving by making .08 the national alcohol limit, just like 21 is the
drinking age limit across the country. And if we do that, we could save
lots of lives, like other westernized countries--like Canada, like
Ireland, like Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland. Poland has a .03
BAC, and Sweden .02.
We can make .08 work in America, if we pass this amendment and
declare our opposition to violence on our highways. Because it is at
.08 that a person's capacity to function is impaired. Their vision,
balance, reaction time, judgment, self-control--this is the level at
which they are medically drunk. And if they are deemed medically drunk,
we ought to deem them legally drunk, in every State, no matter where
they live.
Mr. President, the alcohol lobby is trying to bottle up this bill. We
are not targeting social drinkers. We are targeting drunk drivers. And
when you get drunk, it is your business. But when you get drunk and
drive, it is our business. We are not asking people to stop drinking.
We are not running a temperance society here. We are asking them not to
drive if they are drunk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed all of the
proponents' time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. About 3 more minutes?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, 3 more minutes from the opponents' side.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
By enacting this law, we can stand with our Nation's families and
prevent the loss of life that tears a family apart. We can stand with
the public interest against the narrow opposition of special interests.
Mr. President, we should do the right thing and pass this amendment.
The Washington Post said it this morning in its editorial: The vote is
a vote to create ``a single, clear certified and effective standard
across the country as to what constitutes drunk driving.''
Let us vote to protect our children, our families--not drunk drivers.
And I ask everybody to take one final look at this beautiful child's
face before they cast a vote.
I will yield the floor, but before doing that, Mr. President, I say
thank you to my friend and colleague from Rhode Island for his support
for this amendment, and also to the Senator from Montana who has been
forthright and supportive of this amendment as well.
Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been asked for?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S1304]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned over the high
incidence of highway fatalities in our country that involve alcohol.
In 1996, more than 17,000 lives were lost as a result of alcohol-
related collisions out of the 40,000 deaths overall in our country. So
that is about nearly half. I believe that this measure will help reduce
that.
I understand the views of the opponents who think that it should be
left to the States. But when you have a small State such as mine where
there are people who are constantly going into the neighboring States,
back and forth, it seems to me that in order to make our highways
safer, and which obviously involves out-of-Staters, a law such as this
is necessary. So I support it, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and from Ohio, Senator DeWine, in support
of the amendment to strengthen drunk driving laws throughout the
Nation.
I am very concerned about the safety of our nation's highways. I am
particularly troubled by the high incidence of highway motor vehicle
injuries and fatalities involving alcohol. The statistics are truly
alarming. In 1996, more than 17,000 lives were lost on our nation's
highways as a result of alcohol-related collisions. This represents
nearly half of the 40,000 fatalities that occur on U.S. highways every
year. The real tragedy, however, is that drunk driving accidents are
completely avoidable.
This amendment would strengthen drunk driving laws across the country
and dramatically reduce the number of fatalities attributable to
driving while intoxicated. The amendment specifically targets those
states that have not enacted a .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) drunk
driving law.
In 1997, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(NHTSA) issued a report entitled ``Setting Limits, Saving lives: The
Case for .08 BAC Laws.'' The report cited studies which indicate that
virtually all drivers, regardless of skill, are significantly impaired
at the .08 BAC level. At that level, basic driving skills such as
braking, steering and speed control, as well as judgment, reaction
time, and focused attention are adversely affected.
Contrary to the claims of those who oppose this amendment, the .08
standard does not punish social drinking. To exceed the .08 limit, one
would need to consume an excessive amount of alcohol. The NHTSA report
includes an example. In order to exceed the .08 BAC level, a 170 pound
male would need to consume more than four drinks in an hour, while a
137-pound woman would need to consume three drinks, the report
indicates.
Despite these statistics, 35 states still maintain the higher .10
standard before someone is considered legally drunk--and that puts many
lives at risk. Drunk drivers not only risk their own lives, but the
lives of every other motorist on the road. The .08 level is a sensible
approach to preventing senseless tragedies on our nation's roadways. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.
Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma would like some time.
And the opponents have 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 10 minutes remaining.
Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the situation
such that we are going to vote either up or down on the amendment or a
motion to table the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to table could be made.
Mr. NICKLES. I understand. Is the amendment amendable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion to table fails, it will then be
subject to amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Is it subject to amendment prior to a motion to table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement prohibits that
at the present time.
Mr. NICKLES. I understand.
Mr. President, one of the reasons why I rise in opposition to the
amendment is, the penalty is too hard. I care just as much about the
child that Senator Lautenberg alluded to as anybody else. I care just
as much about wanting to eliminate drunk driving as anybody in this
Chamber.
The penalty under this bill is too harsh. And 10 percent of the
highway funds is--looking at any State--the State of Texas is $1
billion over 6 years. That is a pretty big penalty. The penalty in my
State of Oklahoma is $200 million. That is a pretty big penalty.
The reason why I was asking or inquiring about is it amendable is
that maybe we should change the penalty from 5 percent and 10 percent
to half a percent and 1 percent. You are still talking about real money
that would be a real incentive, but 10 percent is too high. In other
words, we want to encourage States.
I mention the Commerce Committee amendment has an incentive program.
It is not a lot. I think we found out from staff--I did not know when I
made my earlier comments--$25 million, not much of a carrot, a little
bit of a carrot. So we encourage States to do it. Maybe that should be
enhanced a little bit.
But I look at the draconian penalties in this thing. This thing is
really a dagger at the highway program to take 10 percent of the funds.
In the State of Michigan you are talking about $477 million. That is a
lot of money. I mean, so the penalties, in my opinion, are too high.
The reason why I was inquiring about a second-degree amendment is
maybe we should change the penalty and make it 1 percent or 2 percent
instead of 10 percent. I think it is too much of a gun at the head of
the States and saying, ``You have to do this or you're going to lose
hundreds of millions of dollars.''
The State of Texas would lose $1 billion over 6 years. The State of
California over $1 billion. For the State of California it would be
$1.3 billion over a 6-year period of time. That is a lot of money.
So I understand the desire that some people want to Federalize
alcohol-content crimes. That, I believe, should be left in the State's
jurisdiction. I kind of wonder, if you have States that are not
complying--maybe the States are going to change their law but do not
really enforce it. Are we going to have the Federal Government come in
and say, ``Wait a minute. Now you're going to have to monitor the
amount of enforcement''?
We cannot have the State of Rhode Island say, well, they are going to
change the law but not really enforce it until you get over the .1. I
do not know that that would happen, but I question the wisdom of
Federalizing blood alcohol content.
It has not been a Federal crime. It has not been a Federal incidence.
Now we are saying the Federal Government is telling the States, you
have to do this or you will lose hundreds of millions of dollars--in
some States billions of dollars. I think it is overkill. I think it is
too punitive. I think we should consider--and maybe we will not do it
now; I know the bill has a little ways to go; it still has the
conference--but if this provision is going to be in, I think we should
reduce the penalties.

I think it is far too harsh. It is too much of a dictate, too much of
a mandate, too much trampling on, I believe, of the Federal Government
saying, ``Before you get your money back, you must do the following:
Before you get your highway money back, we're going to put an
additional string on it, an additional penalty, up to 10 percent, which
is hundreds of millions of dollars.'' I think it goes too far.
So, Mr. President, one other comment. My colleagues alluded to the
fact that in 1984 we did something comparable, and we had a national
drinking age of 21. Now, it might surprise some of my colleagues on the
other side. I supported that. And the reason is, I live very close to
the border in Oklahoma. And Oklahoma had a 21; Kansas had an 18. And we
had people running back and forth across the State line to take
advantage of that situation. Not a very safe situation. So I supported
it.
I saw some differences in that provision, although the penalty was
still

[[Page S1305]]

very high. It was too high then, in my opinion. This, I think, is a
little bit different. Now we are Federalizing blood alcohol content,
and I seriously doubt the wisdom of doing that. And we are putting far
too heavy of a burden on the States for noncompliance.
Again, for those of us that read the Constitution and say all of the
rights and powers are reserved to States and the people, I think some
of our colleagues and proponents, who have very good intentions, in the
bill are saying, there is a problem and, therefore, we have to have a
Federal solution. We are going to use the heavy hand of the Federal
Government and withhold funds that come from the States, come from the
people, and say, you cannot have that money back unless you do as we
determine what is proper. I think that is a mistake.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have additional time for opponents. How
much time is there for the opponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes.
Mr. CHAFEE. Four and a half minutes. So now is the time. Again, I
urge any opponents to please come to the floor and use that time.
Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island would yield for
a question?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I am a supporter of the amendment, but I am wondering if
I might use one minute if no one else is seeking recognition.
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Let us leave it this way: The Senator from South
Dakota can proceed. If somebody comes in on this side and wants to
speak in opposition, then I would appreciate it if the Senator would
then yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
The Senator from Oklahoma was discussing the 21-year-old drinking
age. That was established in legislation by Congress some long while
ago. In fact, I believe the provisions in that bill, with respect to
penalties for those States that would not comply, are identical to the
provisions of the penalties in this bill.
We have decided, as a country, there are certain things that are
national in scope. Our road program is a national program, a program of
priorities. And I think this amendment simply says, let us determine
what represents drunk driving so that you are not driving in one State
versus another, and come up to an intersection, when you cross the
State line, and find someone driving down the road that is drunk but in
fact is not legally drunk because that State has a different set of
rules.
In fact, you can now--and I hope to change this--you can now drive
and drink in five States. In five States you can put a whiskey bottle
in one hand and a driver's wheel in the other and drive down the road
and you are legal. In over 20 States someone else in the car can have a
party while the driver drives as long as the driver does not drink.
I also will propose, following this amendment at some point, that in
every State in this country we have a prohibition on open containers of
alcohol in vehicles. So the point I wanted to make with respect to the
comments by the previous speaker was, we have tried incentive programs.
For example, a number of years ago we had an incentive program.
Incentive grants were established, since the early 1990s, with respect
to trying to persuade the States to pass legislation prohibiting open
containers in vehicles. We have said, we want incentives to be
available to prevent open containers in vehicles and pass legislation
to prevent open containers in vehicles. Despite that, in 1998, 22
States still prohibit open containers in vehicles. Incentives do not
work. I do not think we ought to talk about incentives on this issue.
And alcohol and vehicles do not mix.
No one in America should be able to drive and drink at the same time.
Yet in five States you can. Nowhere in America should a car be driven
down the road to meet anyone here, their families or anyone in America,
and then at the next intersection have, if not the driver drinking, the
rest of the people in the car with open containers of alcohol. If we
don't decide to have the will to at least require that in this country,
then we will not stop the carnage on American roads.
I appreciate the Senator offering the amendment. I intend to support
it and I hope my colleagues will support it, as well.
Mr. CHAFEE. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CHAFEE. One minute for the opponents. I see no one prepared to
take that time. If somebody from the proponents wishes to use it, with
the understanding that as soon as an opponent appears they will yield--
--
Mr. LAUTENBERG. By the time we finish with the 1 minute--we could
yield back all 37 seconds that remain.
Mr. CHAFEE. Do you want to speak now?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
The arguments have been made abundantly clear. We are talking about
something that will save lives. We are talking, on the other hand,
about whether or not the process is appropriate or whether or not the
penalties are too high.
I submit to Members that there is no penalty too high to permit a
child like this to live a full life. No penalty too severe. I think
when Senators vote here, that is what they ought to be thinking about--
thinking about the people back home and how they will react to a vote
they are making here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. If he were present and voting, he
would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.''
Therefore, I withhold my vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
On this vote, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is paired with
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye).
If present and voting, the Senator from Hawaii would vote ``yea'' and
the Senator from Montana would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

YEAS--62

Abraham
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--32

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Enzi
Feingold
Ford
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Mack
Nickles
Reid
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

McCain

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1
Baucus, against

NOT VOTING--4

Glenn
Inouye
Jeffords
Roberts
The amendment (No. 1682) was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S1306]]

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I just want to point out to the Members
what the next order of business will be. We now will take up the
funding amendment that provided a good deal of additional money for a
whole series of States, every State, and we would like, obviously, to
get a time agreement on that, but we are having some trouble doing it.
We are going to get started nonetheless.

Amendment No. 1684 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for the distribution of additional funds for the
Federal-aid highway program.)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Moynihan, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an
amendment numbered 1684 to Amendment No. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday, the Committee on Environment
and Public Works held an important meeting on the pending business
before the Senate; namely, the underlying legislation, S. 1173, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997. During
yesterday's business meeting, the committee agreed unanimously, the 18
members of the committee voted 18-0, to adopt an amendment to S. 1173,
which will provide an additional $25.9 billion for the Nation's highway
programs over the next 5 years. The additional funds will bring the
total authorization for highways in the bill to $171 billion.
As I mentioned last Thursday in my opening statement on ISTEA II,
which is how we will refer to the underlying legislation, the majority
leader, Senator Lott, and Senators Domenici, D'Amato, Byrd, Gramm,
Warner, Baucus, and I have been working to try to resolve the difficult
issue of how much additional funding should be directed to
transportation. We have participated in a challenging but ultimately
productive set of meetings. Although I am not an advocate of spending
the 4.3 cents gasoline tax on highways, I believe that the agreement we
reached is a fair one that will allow the Senate to complete its work
on ISTEA in a timely fashion.
The principal question on everyone's mind is how this additional
funding will be allocated among the 50 States and various ISTEA
programs. I am pleased that the amendment before us distributes the new
money in a manner that is responsible to all States and to all regions
of the country. Moreover, the committee amendment does not affect the
allocations or program structure in the underlying ISTEA II bill. The
lion's share of the additional funds, $18.9 billion, goes to all 50
States in the same proportion as the formulas under S. 1173.
Before we proceed, I want to outline the package adopted by the
committee yesterday. To make the bill fairer, the committee amendment
provides additional funds for those States that did not fare as well as
the majority of the States in S. 1173.
First of all, this amendment does address the inequities of the so-
called donor States, those States that contribute more money to the
highway trust fund than they receive from the Federal aid highway
program. The underlying bill, S. 1173, as reported, guaranteed that
each State would receive at least 90 cents in return for every dollar
allocated to the States from the trust fund. The amendment before us
includes an additional $1.9 billion over the life of the bill to ensure
that each State receives at least 91 cents in return.
Now, the States that will benefit from this donor State bonus are the
following: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. These States have complete flexibility to use the additional
funds for any purpose authorized under title 23, which is the Federal
aid highway title of the U.S. Code. That is the first thing we did.
Second, there are a number of densely populated States, such as
California, Illinois, and New Jersey, where high volumes of traffic
clog the roads and high repair costs impede routine maintenance. The
committee amendment provides an additional $1.8 billion over the next 5
years for these high-density States. The additional funds may be spent
for any purpose authorized under title 23 to relieve the terrible
congestion problems and address tremendous infrastructure needs.
Those States which are neither donor States nor high-density States
also may spend a percentage, 22 percent, of the additional funds they
receive pursuant to this amendment for any purpose authorized under
title 23.
The committee amendment also provides additional funds for those
ISTEA programs directed to regions of the country with unique needs.
For instance, the Appalachian Development Highway System was first
authorized in law in 1965, but is not yet completed. The committee
amendment provides an additional $1.89 billion for the Appalachian
Highway Program for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to help complete the
3,025 mile system.
Second, as a result of the implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other key trade agreements, states along
the Mexican and Canadian borders have experienced a substantial
increase in truck traffic. The increased traffic and congestion along
these routes has put a heavy burden on the corridors that connect
border locations and other ports of entry. The committee amendment
provides $450 million over the next five years in contract authority
for the nation's border infrastructure and trade corridors.
Third, the roads that run through the nation's parks, Indian
reservations, and other public lands are in great need of maintenance
and repair. The committee amendment provides an additional $850 million
over 5 years for the Federal Lands Highway Program.
This is in addition to the money that was included in the bill
originally as we submitted it.
Of the $850 million total, the committee amendment provides $50
million per year for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to help address the
mounting needs of the nation's 49,000 miles of Indian reservation
roads. An additional $50 million per year for the next 5 years, is
provided for the Public Lands Highway Program, which funds Forest
Service roads and other public roads that run through federal lands.
The remaining $350 million in the Federal Lands portion of the
committee amendment is directed to the Park Roads and Park Ways
Program. An integral part of our National Parks System is the 8,000
miles of park roads and parkways that make the splendor of these
national treasures accessible to all Americans. Fifty million dollars
of the $70 million annually for the Park Roads and Parkways Program is
directed to these roads that run through our national park system.
The remaining $20 million per year is set-aside to address the
backlog of needs for the roads in our National Wildlife Refuge System.
I am delighted that the committee has agreed to include this additional
funding for the 4,250 miles of refuge roads within the system. Indeed,
the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, plays a pivotal role in the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources throughout the country. The additional funds
provided in the committee amendment will allow the Service to better
focus its appropriations on the core mission of protecting fish and
wildlife and their habitats.
Mr. President, before closing, I want to thank all of the members of
the committee for their diligence and cooperation in adopting the
amendment before us.
I see Senator Warner here, who has been a very valuable ally and
originator, actually, of much that is in this legislation.

[[Page S1307]]

I thank them all for their diligence and cooperation in adopting the
amendment before us. I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, who
presided over the negotiations in which we arrived at this compromise;
Senator Byrd, Senator Warner, whom I previously mentioned, Senator
Baucus, the ranking member of the full committee, who has been so
helpful, Senator Gramm, and particularly Senator Domenici. All I thank
for their determination and resolve during our discussions.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment before us
so we can proceed to the business at hand and enact an ISTEA II bill
which will bring the Nation's transportation system into the next
century.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to defer to the distinguishing
ranking member. Then I shall follow dutifully the seniority of our
committee.
First, I thank the chairman, and I will include those remarks.
But we have on the floor here the distinguished senior Senator from
South Carolina, the President pro tempore, who has counseled with me,
and other members of the committee, on a regular basis concerning this.
The distinguished Senator represents South Carolina, which is in the
category of a donor State, as is the State of Virginia. I wish to
assure the senior Senator from South Carolina--and perhaps the chairman
can join me--that his State will receive an allocation of 91 percent
under the formulation that I and others have worked out. We, in the
course of the recalculation, specifically asked the chairman and the
distinguished ranking member, as, over the weekend, we reworked the
formula. It was my desire to raise the level from 90 to 91 percent with
respect to as many donor States as we could achieve. But according to
my calculations, I represent to the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina that his State has achieved a 91 percent mark.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I say, as chairman of the
Transportation Subcommittee, that the answer is yes. In fact, currently
there are a good number of States--so-called ``donor'' States--which
contribute more to the highway trust fund than they receive in terms of
highway allocations. They receive actually less than 90 percent. There
are some States down around the 80s. One, I think, is 76 percent. I am
not sure about South Carolina. But the bill that passed the committee
made sure that there is a floor of 90 percent--that donor States get at
least 90 percent. Through the able efforts of the Senator from
Virginia, and others--Virginia is often a donor State--that was then
raised to 91 percent.
This was one of the areas of concern that we on the committee had
when we considered additional money under the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus
amendment; that is, there are some States that felt they needed
additional money because of high density, and others because they are
donor States. There are some Western States that felt because they are
public land States they should get some, too. And then the Appalachian
Regional Commission felt that there was not enough money in the
underlying bill. So the amendment would give a little more to
Appalachia.

But the long and short of it is that South Carolina, and all donor
States, will, under the amendment now pending, combined with the
underlying bill, receive at least 91 percent. Technically, it is 91
percent of the percentage of their contribution of the funds that are
allocated, but for all intents and purposes, it is raised from 90
percent to 91 percent.
Mr. President, while I have the floor, I would like to follow on the
points made by the very distinguished and able chairman of the
committee, Senator Chafee, very generally. Several of us--Senator
Chafee, myself, Senator Byrd, Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, Senator
Domenici, and, most particularly, the majority leader, Senator Trent
Lott, met many, many times over the last several weeks to find a fair
way to distribute dollars that would be raised in the act transferring
4.3 cents of the gasoline tax to the trust fund, and then back to the
States.
Essentially, we came up with a program dealing first with States that
had legitimate concerns as a consequence of the committee bill and then
distributing the rest back to the States according to the percentage
share that they were receiving under the bill so as not to give any
favoritism to anyone in place.
That is what we did. It is an agreement that was agreed to by all the
main parties. We, at the same time, talked with many other Senators who
were not part of this conversation in order to have a result that
reflected fairness to regions in all parts of the country.
It is also an agreement agreed to by Senator Domenici, the very, very
able chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He said he would find a
way with these increases to come up with a balanced budget resolution
that does not exceed the caps in the budget resolution so that those
who are concerned that this additional money might ``bust the budget''
may rest much more assured that is not the case. If anybody can find a
way to not balance the budget and not bust the caps and get the rest of
the additional money because of this amendment, certainly Senator
Domenici can do that.
I might add, Mr. President, that these issues are never easy. Every
State feels that it should have a few more highway dollars, and every
State feels that its share is not quite as fair as the share of other
States. There is no magic in this. It is just a matter of looking at
all the claims, all the equities, and all the differences in different
parts of the country. Some States are donor States and some States are
donee States. Others have completed their interstate highways later,
rather than earlier. Some States have real bridge problems that need to
be addressed. Some States, like in ours, in the West, next to public
lands, count on a lot of tourists who visit our States. For example, in
the State of Montana, there is tourism with tourists going to visit
Yellowstone or Glacier Parks. Some tourists pay a little bit of Montana
tax to the degree that they travel in our State. But we in Montana have
to pay a lot to maintain those highways. So it is adding all of those
equities together as best we possibly can.
On the numbers again, just so everyone is clear, the underlying bill
spends about $145 billion in contract authority over 6 years on the
highway program. The amendment that we are now addressing, that is
before the body, adds $6 billion for a total $171 billion in contract
authority that would be spent allocated among the States.
I do not want to get too technical about this, but contract authority
is not exactly the same as obligation limitations or outlays, which is
to say that the Budget Committee will determine what those obligation
limitations are. The Appropriations Committee will then decide how much
of the total it can spend. The Appropriations Committee will not be
bound to spend the full $171 billion unless it wants to. The
Appropriations Committee can spend a little less, if it decides in its
determination that it is more appropriate because it will have to find
some offsets to spend this additional money. Obviously, there will be
some compelling needs with the Budget Committee with other ideas and
other programs, but still with the contract authority set at $171
billion over 6 years, there is a tremendous incentive for the Budget
Committee and the Appropriations Committee to spend--allocate outlays--
the actual dollars going to the States to build highways at a level
very close to $171 billion--not entirely, but very, very close.
This underlying bill, Mr. President, I remind Senators, is much, much
more flexible than the current highway program. The current highway
program has 11 separate categories that are pretty rigid; somewhat
inflexible. They give State highway departments gray hairs sometimes,
because one State's needs--say that were Arkansas--is a little bit
different from another State's needs--let's say Montana or Rhode Island
or Virginia or South Carolina.

So we collapsed those 11 categories into 6. And the six are now much
more flexible, very flexible. For example, one of the main categories
is called ``surface transportation account.'' You can

[[Page S1308]]

take money out of that for Amtrak, if you want. You can take money out
of that for mass transit, if you want. You can spend more on
enhancements, if you wish. There is a lot of flexibility here,
flexibility that the States have, much more flexibility given to States
than is the case under the current highway bill. The departments of
transportation commissioners wanted this. It makes sense to the
committee that much more delegation of flexibility be given to the
States.
For those who are concerned about the Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality Program, CMAQ, actually there are more dollars in this bill
than the current CMAQ program. CMAQ is important because we want to
make sure that building more highways is consistent with improving air
quality. We passed the Clean Air Act in 1991, telling States and cities
that are not in attainment to undertake certain actions to bring their
air quality standards into compliance. Obviously, if you build a lot
more lanes, have a lot more traffic in the city, more cars, more auto
emissions, sometimes it is inconsistent with the goals of air quality
improvement. So, basically, the CMAQ money is there to help deal with
that problem.
And, I might say, in the first category, called ``interstate
maintenance,'' called ``national highway system money,'' there is a
restriction: You cannot build additional lanes for single occupancy.
You can for HOV lanes, again to address congestion and air quality
problems, but you cannot build lanes just for single-occupancy cars.
Again, we are trying to merge two competing programs together.
I might say, this is particularly important, this amendment, to my
State of Montana. We are a big State. We don't have a lot of people. In
fact, we have more miles per capita of highways than any other State in
the Nation. Our State gasoline tax is the third highest in the Nation.
We are paying for our highways as best as we possibly can. We are not a
big industrial State. In fact, we are a relatively poor State. I am
embarrassed to say this, but Montana, today, ranks 46th in the Nation
for per capita income. We were 35th, 36th, not too many years ago. We
are now down to 46th.
It is tough. We don't have the money in Montana to pay for our roads,
and this is going to go a long way. Mr. President, 90 percent of the
households in Montana make multiple trips of over 100 miles each year,
and that is compared with a national average of 80 percent. As I say,
tourists come to Montana--actually it's 8 million visitors who come to
visit our State. It is beautiful. Glacier National Park in the
summertime--a lot of people come to fish and camp out and bring their
families from all over the country. In the winter, of course, there is
skiing, whether it's downhill, cross-country, or snowmobiling, which is
very popular in our State.
I will just sum up by saying, as much as it sounds like we spend a
lot of money on highways, in the larger context this really is not
enough. Today, the United States spends, State, local and Federal
combined, about $34 billion a year on our highways. The Department of
Transportation did a needs study, what is needed to be spent just to
maintain the current condition of our highways, recognizing winter and
summer things get beat up and so on and so forth. They concluded that
about $54 billion a year should be spent just to maintain the current
level of maintenance of America's highway system. So if we want to do
better, we should spend, according to the Department of Transportation,
maybe $70 billion a year, so as to improve our highway system, to keep
up with the highway system in Germany, for example, and some other
countries that spend a lot of money on their highways.
Of course, their gasoline taxes are much higher than they are in the
United States, but those dollars go to improve their highways. That is
a decision that those countries have made. We are spending $171 billion
over 6 years. That is a far cry from $60, $70 billion over 1 year. It
is just an example of what other countries are doing compared with what
our needs are, to explain that the current bill, as important as it is,
is probably not enough if we wanted to improve upon our current system.
I am going to yield the floor to whoever wants to speak here. Again,
I thank all those who worked very hard on this and hope we can conclude
this bill very quickly, because we have to go to conference on the
House-passed bill whenever they pass their bill. By May 1, the bill has
to be signed by the President. By May 1, that's when the current
program expires. We were a bit derelict last year in the Senate when we
did not pass the highway bill even though the program expired June 30
of last year. We got tied up on campaign finance reform, and we agreed
to move the transportation bill up to one of the first orders of
business in 1998. That slipped a little, but fortunately here we are.
It is very important that we move expeditiously to meet our Nation's
needs and satisfy Americans who want to be assured that we have the
highway program in place, a solid 6-year program, so contractors can
plan and State departments of transportation can plan ahead and we do
not have to worry about this on-again/off again problem that we are
currently facing with our program. So I hope we do move very
expeditiously to pass not only this amendment but the full bill so we
can get on to work with the House in the conference and pass the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will engage in a
colloquy? As subcommittee chairman--fortunately, I have had as my
ranking member the distinguished Senator from Montana from the very
first day of the consideration of this bill in the Environment
Committee, and of course we initiated the work in the subcommittee. The
Senator from Montana and I decided that we were not going to seek
retribution for some of the inequities in the 1991 ISTEA, but we were
going to try to establish a formula and other provisions in the bill
which brought about the greatest equity achievable, in a bipartisan
way, in this piece of legislation. I feel that we have remained true to
that fundamental principle that the Senator from Montana and I laid
down on day 1.
Do you share that view?
Mr. BAUCUS. I answer the point of the very distinguished Senator from
Virginia that I very much do. I might remind the Senator of several
facts which substantiate his point.
No. 1, the current highway program is based on very dated data. It is
based on the 1980 census. We even have in here the 1916 postal road
formula--that is in the current law. Of course, the bill we are passing
today brings it up to date.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have even used the example, the pony
express was still in here someplace.
Mr. BAUCUS. Once we get this legislation passed, we are out of the
pony express era because we will have current data, data reflecting how
many miles people travel in their State, lane miles, vehicle miles, et
cetera. That is a formula based on the actual usage and needs in the
State, which is critical.
In addition to that, I might add to my distinguished friend that
there were earlier separate competing bills. There was a STEP 21 bill
sponsored by the Senator from Virginia; there was a STARS 2000 bill,
which had a little Western influence; there was ISTEA-Plus, I think the
name of it was, or the ISTEA bill which was sponsored by the
northeastern Members of the Senate.
With the leadership of Senator Warner we were able to bring the three
bills together. We didn't favor one region over another. On a very
bipartisan basis, you on your side and I on my side, along with Senator
Chafee, had to come up with a bill which is fair to America, fairest to
the country.
We passed our bill out of committee. Even though we did the very best
we could, there were still some Senators who had some concerns. Some of
them were off the committee. We dealt with those concerns with this
amendment on a very bipartisan basis.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague, because I felt as a trustee of
these funds--and when you and I, for example, joined on the first
amendment to try to add additional funding, we were going to win that
when, obviously, leadership was able to persuade one or two colleagues
and we came within one vote, to my recollection.
Then along came the distinguished senior Senator from Texas and our
distinguished former majority leader, the

[[Page S1309]]

distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and you and I joined in that
effort, even though we were at odds with our distinguished chairman and
other members of the committee. We felt it was imperative to add these
funds. With the add-on, I want to make clear, we left the basic formula
intact, 90 percent intact, and simply superimposed this amendment on
top.
Again, under the guidance of the distinguished chairman of the
committee and yourself--and I had a voice in it, of course--we again
tried to achieve equity. I specifically asked the chairman to make
certain that in the recalculation, over the weekend, we get as many
States as possible above the 90 to 91 percent. I think we have done
that. There may be some 90.8, some fraction. But in order to achieve
the fundamental equity, we did our very best in superimposing this add-
on, on the undisturbed basic bill, as the allocations were made up in
that bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly right. In fact, in a nutshell, we believe
it is only fair to the American people that a portion of the gasoline
tax that goes to the trust fund be allocated to the States. We took
that amount, 3.45 cents, and essentially allocated it according to the
provisions of the underlying bill without changing the formulas, making
a couple of minor changes to accommodate some legitimate concerns of
Senators. That is basically what we have done. Frankly, I cannot think
of a fairer way to do it.
I am also reminded there is sort of a feeling in the room, and also
the feeling in the committee when we acted on this in the room where we
put this together--you can tell when it's fair or not fair. Everybody
was happy and felt good. It felt good. Also, in the committee, when the
committee reported out this amendment, you could tell, too, it passed
unanimously with Senators all around, as the Senator well knows.
Mr. WARNER. That's owing to the leadership of Senator Chafee, in the
first bill, and you--Senator Chafee and you as ranking. When we
brought, shall we say, the subcommittee bill, before the full
committee, I was astonished we got a unanimous vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I was, too.
Mr. WARNER. Now with Senator Chafee's leadership, we got another
unanimous vote in our committee. But I have felt the will of the entire
Senate was represented in various groups on our committee. We listened
carefully, took things into consideration, and did the best we could. I
am urging Senators to support this amendment. But I caution those who
want to come and perhaps give their own proposal, be careful, because
once you take one part of this formula and move it, you will be
surprised how all the States begin to go up and down in other areas of
the calculations.
So, I think the Senate will have to repose a lot of trust in our
committee. But that trust is predicated on the principle of fairness
that we started with when the first word of this bill was placed down
by the subcommittee, and it has transcended--that concept of fairness
is throughout our work.
I thank my distinguished colleague.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I thank
my colleagues, each of those who are on the floor, and my dear
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who is not here, for their
leadership in bringing us to the point at which we find ourselves
today.
What I would like to do is to explain the problem we sought to deal
with, say a little bit about how we came to be at this point, and then
try to explain why every Member of the Senate should rejoice that we
have reached a point where we are going to take a very dramatic step in
terms of improving the quality of America's highways and, in doing so,
improve their safety, their efficiency, and not only save the lives of
thousands of our fellow citizens, but improve the lives of tens of
millions of Americans who use our highways.
I entered this debate over one simple issue, and I have always viewed
it as an issue that has to do with honesty in Government and equity.
The issue that I entered the debate on, along with Senator Byrd and
joined by Senator Baucus and Senator Warner, was an issue that boils
down to basic trust. And that is, people go to the filling station and,
in a lot of States in the Union, that little clip that you used to put
on the nozzle where you could pump the gas and go on about your
business and do something else, many States have taken that clip off.
So you often find yourself standing there holding this nozzle, and
every once in a while, in desperation, somebody reads the gasoline
pump.
When you read the gasoline pump, it sort of gives the good news and
the bad news story. The bad news is a third of the cost of buying a
gallon of gasoline in America is taxes. The good news is, at least, as
it says it on the pump, that the gasoline tax is a user fee and that
user fee is used to build roads. So while you should be unhappy that a
third of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is going to pay taxes, you
should be happy with the fact that at least those taxes are going to
build the very roads that you are going to ride on in burning up that
gasoline that you are buying.
I entered this debate because the bad news is true, a third of the
cost of a gallon of gasoline is, in fact, taxes, but today it is not
true that all those taxes go to build roads. In fact, beginning in the
1990s, the Federal Government started diverting highway trust funds to
other use. So we collected gasoline taxes, those moneys were put into
the trust fund, but by not spending those moneys on highways, we were
able to spend those moneys on other things.
Then, in 1993, the Congress adopted the first permanent gasoline tax
in American history since we had the highway trust fund where the money
went to general revenues, and so the money was spent and none of it was
spent on highways.
That produced a situation by this year where roughly 25 to 30 cents
out of every dollar paid by every American in gasoline taxes goes not
to build roads but to fund other expenditures of the Federal
Government.
Senator Byrd and I started this debate because we believed that that
was dishonest. We believed that the Government was deceiving the
American people, and we thought it was wrong. We thought it was wrong
to take a dedicated tax and spend it on general Government rather than
spending it for the purpose to which Americans had been led to believe
that they were paying the tax.
Our first victory in this roughly 2-year effort was on the tax bill
last year where we were able to take that 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on
gasoline away from general revenue and put it back into the highway
trust fund where it belonged. It was a big issue, because 4.3 cents per
gallon collects roughly $7 billion a year in revenues.
We were successful in that effort. Then, last year, we started the
effort to guarantee that the money was actually spent on highways. That
effort, by Senator Byrd and myself, produced a coalition with Senator
Baucus and Senator Warner, the chairman and ranking member of the
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the highway bill. That started a
negotiation which reached a successful conclusion the day before
yesterday in a new highway bill, for all practical purposes, very
different than the bill that the President proposed, very different
from the bill that came out of the committee, and I think different in
being better.

The bill before us guarantees that over the next 6 years, we will
move from a situation where almost 30 cents out of every dollar of
gasoline taxes today is diverted to some use other than building
highways and for transportation purposes to spend on general programs.
We will move from that situation today to a situation 6 years from now
when this bill is fully in effect so that every penny of the 4.3-cents-
per-gallon tax on gasoline, which is now diverted to other uses, will
be used for the purpose of improving the transportation system of
America and building roads.
That will mean that this bill will, over the next 6 years, spend $173
billion on highways. The difference in the number that Senator Baucus
used and this number is that about $2 billion of the expenditure is
under another title in the Commerce Committee, and I do not want people
to be confused to think we have taken away $2 billion from the
agreement that we announced the other day. The total is $173 billion.
What does that mean relative to the highway bill that has just ended?
What it means nationwide is that by the economic growth we have
experienced, by

[[Page S1310]]

the growth in the collection of gasoline taxes and by dedicating every
penny of gasoline taxes to build roads, nationwide we are going to
increase the amount of money for highway construction over the next 6
years, as compared to the last 6 years, by 45 percent. That is a
dramatic change. As a result of this bill, Americans who would have
died on roads in West Virginia and Texas and all over America will not
die. As a result of this bill, people who would have waited in
congestion, taking time away from their work or their family, will find
that that congestion has been abated.
So we are not just talking about spending another $26 billion of
money on highways, the purpose for which the money was collected. But
we are talking about improving the lives of Americans by the tens of
millions and saving the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens.
Secondly, by getting out of this absurd situation we were in under
the previous bill where we were using the 1980 census for no other
purpose than to discriminate in favor of States that were losing
population and against those that were gaining population, by going to
the current census, a State like my State, which has been growing very
rapidly, will not only benefit from the fact that we are not allowing
30 cents out of every dollar of money collected in gasoline taxes to be
siphoned off to pay for something else, but by using the current census
and through other factors, the State of Texas will have an increase in
highway funding over the previous bill of 60 percent. Obviously, that
is a big deal for my State. It is a big deal for every State in the
Union.
Some people will say, ``Well, but if you're spending the money on
highways, you're not spending the money on other things.'' When we
debated this bill for the first time at the end of the last session,
our opposition came from people who basically said, ``Well, spending
money on highways is great, but if you spend this money on highways, we
can't spend it on other things.''
Let me respond to that in two ways. First of all, we do have a great
need in highways, but the real argument is not one of relative need.
The real argument is we collected the money for the purpose of building
highways. This is a dedicated tax. So those who find today a sad
occasion because for the first time since the mid-eighties we are
actually going to spend gasoline taxes on highways and they are unhappy
because we are not going to spend the money on other things, let me
say, as I have said in the past, that they remind me of rustlers who
have been stealing our cattle. We finally catch them, we call the
sheriff out, we don't hang them, we don't even make them give our old
cattle back they stole. All we say to them is, ``You have to quit
stealing our cattle.'' We will hear from a few of them today, and their
basic response will be, ``Well, that's great, but where do I get my
beef? If I can't rob the highway trust fund, where do I get this money
to do all this good I want to do?''

I have two responses. One, that is not my problem. Two, we should
have never been spending highway trust fund money for other purposes.
We should have never let the Federal Government collect money in
gasoline taxes and turn around and spend it for something other than
the purpose for which those taxes were collected.
So I believe this is a happy day. Is everybody satisfied? I have
great appreciation of the situation of Senator Chafee and Senator
Baucus and Senator Warner. You can't satisfy everybody. We have a
highway system that is a national system and, obviously, I have been
unhappy about the fact that my State was getting 77 cents for every
dollar we sent to Washington. I have complained vigorously, and partly
as a result of that complaint, we have changed the bill. We have gotten
rid of the 1980 census, and we are going to have a dramatic increase in
funding going to States like mine.
You can always say, ``We want more,'' but I think it is important,
and Senator Chafee has made the point and I agree with it, we have a
National Highway System. When we were building roads across Texas in
the 1950s and 1960s, the Interstate Highway System, we were more of a
beneficiary State. But what good is it to have an Interstate Highway
System that when it gets to Western States, you don't have the highway?
If it is an east-west or north-south system and you have a State that
has a low population and a low formula and, as a result, can't build
its system, do you have a national system?
There are always going to be years, because of the ongoing building
of the interstate system, where some States are going to get more than
a dollar back, some are going to get less. But thanks to Senator
Warner--and I congratulate him and thank him personally--under this
bill, for all practical purposes, no State will ever again get less
than 91 cents out of every dollar in formula money back that they send
to Washington in terms of highway taxes.
What that means is, no matter what we are doing in terms of a
national system, at least that minimum will be available to every
State. I think that is a dramatic improvement, and I think it is
something of which people can be proud.
I think this is a major step forward. I thank everyone who has worked
on the bill. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with the
sponsors, with Senator Chafee. I thank Senator Lott for his ability to
bring everybody together. I think it has been a classic case of
democracy at work. Someone once said that there are two things you
don't want to watch people do. One is making sausage and the other is
making laws.
But I have to say that I think any civics class at any high school in
America that sat through the whole process on writing this highway
bill, that sat in every meeting and every negotiation, and that watched
the give-and-take, that listened to the intellectual content of the
debate, both public and private debate, that watched the consensus
form, would go away convinced that, while our system is not perfect, it
is clearly the best system that has ever been devised by the mind of
man.
So I am proud of this bill. I am happy for my State. I am happy for
the country. I believe that this is a dramatic improvement. And while I
do not agree with or support every single provision of the bill, you
reach a point where you have to say, this is the best we are going to
do given that we have 100 Members of the Senate. There will be those
who will be offering amendments to try to tear this consensus apart. I
do not intend to support any of those amendments. I think we have put
together a good bill. And I think it is time to get on with improving
our highway system, with saving lives, with improving the quality of
life for hundreds of millions of people all over the country.
So I am for this amendment. I am for this bill. And I congratulate
those who have been the leaders of that effort.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Texas for his remarks, personal and otherwise, directed at those
who put together this amendment.
But now I say to all colleagues, we are entering into that phase
which I have called in previous iterations of the highway bill, the
``battle of the charts.'' And the charts are coming over the transom,
under the transom, and from all directions. And it comes down to
whether or not someone can put up a matrix which benefits their State a
little bit more. But I assure you, it is at the detriment of someone
else. And you have to at some point, when the votes come, decide: Did
the committee or did not the committee try and do an equitable
distribution of the funds?
The basic bill reported out by the subcommittee, then by the full
committee, is unchanged. But in working out the most equitable
distribution we could under the add-on, as a consequence of the Byrd-
Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, you could figure it several different
ways. And therein I presume the debate will focus in just such time as
we proceed to vote on this amendment. And there are means by which you
could calculate it in a different way.
I think Senators are perfectly entitled to fight. And they should.
But it all comes back to, will their formula be viewed as an equitable
distribution of the funds?

[[Page S1311]]

And I say that when the final vote is taken it is my hope and it is
my expectation that the Senate will express its confidence in the
ability of the committee--under the guidance of the distinguished
majority leader, and, indeed, with the valued input of Senator Byrd,
Senator Gramm of Texas--that we did the best we could to make equitable
distribution of the apple.
So let us now engage in the ``battle of the charts.'' I hope Senators
will come to the floor and express their views with respect to their
individual States and their own view as to whether or not equity was
achieved.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank our friends on the
committee for their effort here. And we are trying to get information
to help us decide exactly how we should respond to the committee
amendment. That information was requested as soon as the amendment was
adopted. We are still awaiting for that information.
I think it is only fair to those States, States that have been
particularly put in a donor position decade after decade after decade,
which is the case with many of our States, that we get the information
that we sought. We very well--I am speaking just for myself--we very
well may end up supporting this amendment. But it would seem to me, as
a matter of fundamental fairness, that when an amendment this complex
and this important to our States is brought to the floor, that where
information is sought from the Department of Transportation, that
information be forthcoming before we are expected to vote on this
amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I know of no
reason why the chairman, who is momentarily absent from the floor, or
the ranking member or myself is trying to push this to a conclusion
prior to those who desire to have additional information get all that
information and have free discussion on it.
So please do not send out the alarm that, in my judgment, we are
trying to roll this thing through before all States have an opportunity
to examine the complexity of this and get such information and charts
as they so desire.
Mr. LEVIN. I very much appreciate it.
Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator would yield for me to further make the
point of the Senator from Virginia, the Senator knows my office is also
calling the DOT to light a fire under them to get the information back
so that the Senator from Michigan has all the information he wants in
order to make an informed decision.
He is absolutely right. I mean, he represents his State and wants to
represent it to the fullest. And he believes, correctly, that he would
like to have more information. And so we are doing our best to get the
information for the Senator. Once he does have it, I am quite confident
things will work out. But it is more important, first, to get that
information.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friends from Montana and Virginia for their
support in our effort to get this information and, indeed, for their
long, hard efforts to try to bring a conclusion to this effort to come
up with a fair highway bill.
The problem is, as the Chair and others know, there are some States
that have not been treated equitably and fairly, at least in our eyes,
over the decades.
First, the Senator from Texas correctly says we have a National
Highway System. And that is true. I do not think it would be possible
to build an interstate across Montana if Montana only got back the
amount of money in gas tax for the building of that interstate that was
sent to Washington by folks buying gas in Montana. I have no doubt of
the truth of that comment.
I have been to Montana. I have been on those interstates. I
understand that. I appreciate that. Indeed, I would support that if
this were coming up for funding in the 1950s. But that does not explain
why a whole bunch of other States that are not in that situation get
back a $1.20, $1.40, $1.60, $1.80, $2 for every dollar they send.
We can explain some of this to our constituents. And I have. I get up
and use Montana as the example. And I say, it is only right, if you are
going to have an Interstate System, that more money go to build an
interstate in Montana than is coming from Montana. That is the point
the Senator from Texas made.
But, again, let me emphasize, there are a whole bunch of States that
that is not applicable to, who have for decades gotten back a heck of a
lot more than they have sent into this system and put into that trust
fund. And those of us that have been in a donor position for decades,
because of these formulas which were put in here many years ago, cannot
possibly justify the huge amounts which many donee States have received
which do not relate to the fact that they are sparsely populated and
have large distances to cross.
And while my friend from Texas may be correct in the case of some
States falling into the donor or donee situation, depending upon what
year you may be looking at, there are other States which have been in
the donor situation constantly throughout where you cannot justify
this. And there has been some effort in this bill to correct the
unfairness. And I want to thank my friends from Rhode Island, Montana,
Virginia, and to others, Texas, who participated in this effort to get
a little more fairness for the so-called donor States. I want to thank
them for that effort.

Does it come close to repairing the unfairness? I do not know. And we
are not going to know until we get this data. There are a lot of
complications in these formulas. My dear friend from Virginia is right,
you get all kinds of charts coming in. I mean, one chart which we
already have shows that two-thirds of the States actually get a smaller
percentage under the committee amendment than they did under the
underlying bill.
If that is true--and some of those being donor States--if that is
true, how do donor States then get a guarantee of 91 cents back instead
of 90 cents, if some of those two-thirds of the States that get a
smaller percentage under the committee amendment are donor States?
My State gets a smaller percentage under the committee amendment than
it does under the underlying bill. You can add all the money you want,
which is what the committee did, but the problem still is going to
remain in terms of the percentage of the contribution unless something
else happens here. We should be in a worse percentage situation under
the committee amendment than we were under the underlying bill. But
that is what we want to look at in terms of charts.
I have questions about the density group. How is that defined? I have
highly dense, congestive places in the State of Michigan, but I am not
one of those 10 States. How is it defined? And why? And why is it that
10 States all get the same amount of money for density no matter where
they may fall on some density chart? No matter where they fall, they
all get the same amount of money year after year, but States that do
not quite reach the level of density get nothing. I would like to at
least know why and how, how that is arrived at.
I have a number of questions which I would like to have answered. Are
those special categories--for instance, density. When you get a density
bonus or a density amount in this bill, does that count in terms of the
donor State guarantee of 91 percent? Does that count towards that? We
do not know. Perhaps some of the sponsors of the amendment could answer
that question.
And to my friend from Texas, my understanding is it is not 91 cents
back on the dollar; it is 91 percent of contribution. And that, as a
matter of fact, is not 91 percent of your contributions, because there
is something taken off the top here. So it is 91 percent of the
contributions of the amount which is distributed to the States which is
less than 100 percent.
I wish it were 91 cents on the dollar, I tell my good friend from
Texas. I wish it were that every buck we are going to send to
Washington, from here on in, we are assured we are going to get 91
cents back. That is not my understanding of what this bill does.
So I think here that there is an underlying feeling on the part of
many States two things: One, that we need a fairer treatment; and, two,
that we want to see some data. And, three, speaking now for myself,
when we receive that data, it may answer a whole

[[Page S1312]]

lot of these questions so that indeed someone like me may end up voting
for an amendment such as this, as being an improvement over the status
quo.
Now, there is another problem which none of us are going to solve
here. And that is that there are offsets for this increase. And we do
not know where those offsets are coming from. Because the budget is
going to be adopted after we adopt this bill. And the Budget Committee
is going to have to find, as I understand it for this upcoming year, $1
billion-plus. We do not know where that $1 billion-plus is coming from.
Now, we are all in that boat. But it is a problem that we all ought
to be concerned about. Is that $1 billion going to come from education?
Is that $1 billion coming from veterans? It is going to come from
domestic discretionary spending. And even those who vote for this
amendment, it seems to me, have to be concerned with what lies down the
road in terms of paying for this committee add-on.
Again, that is nothing which data from the highway department is
going to be able to answer. That is something which we are going to
have to fight out or debate in the weeks and months ahead. But it is a
real concern. It is an unanswered question. In this case it is a
question which cannot be answered prior to the time when we will be
voting on this amendment. But, nonetheless, it should be raised as a
flag, I think, for all of us. Even those of us who intensely support
this amendment, it seems to me, would have some concern about, how are
we going to pay for the offset, to pay for the amount of money which
has been added?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could interject. I thank the Senator.
I rose for the purpose of a clarifying statement. You do not pose that
in any way as a delay of a judgment by the Senate on the pending
amendment? It is just a realization that at some point in time the
Senate, as a body, will have to consider where the offsets came from,
but not in the context of getting a definitive answer for the purposes
of addressing a yea or nay on this amendment; am I not correct?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. As I said, that is a concern that I hope all of us have
regardless of how we end up voting on this amendment as to how that
money is going to be paid for, how that offset is going to be achieved.

Second is something I am very much concerned about. We keep hearing
thoughts, rumors as to where this is coming from, but that will not be
resolvable. I do believe the good chairman of the Budget Committee has
indicated there will be no undue impact on any domestic discretionary
program as a result, but I haven't seen those exact words--I have heard
that secondhand--that the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, has said something like no undue impact on any
discretionary program. But I'm not going to quote him because I didn't
actually see the quote itself.
So what it comes down to is that we have an amendment that is
pending. We have a request for information relative to a complicated
amendment, made yesterday to the highway department. We don't have that
information.
If the managers of the bill and the sponsors of this amendment are
willing to get that information forthcoming before our vote, it seems
to me we either ought to have a quorum, as I understand they are on
their way, or we ought to set aside this amendment for an hour or two
so those of us who are not decided on how to vote on this amendment
could be in a position where we could vote on it.

privilege of the floor

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr.
Inhofe, for purposes of this debate, I ask unanimous consent that Mr.
Andrew Wheeler be granted floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ran a calculation for the Senator from
Michigan and I will send it over to my good friend. He and I came to
the Senate together and sit on the Armed Services Committee together.
We have had many debates. The records are full. If the Senator would,
take a look at that and see whether or not my analysis of your State is
correct. But as I listened carefully, the Senator made the
representation to the Senate in his remarks that there are some States
that will get less money than they would under the underlying bill.
Mr. LEVIN. That is not correct. The Senator is not correct. I said
about two-thirds of the States get a smaller percentage under the
amendment than they do under the underlying bill. I will give the
Senator some examples and have them printed in the Record.
I believe this chart comes from the Federal Highway Administration. I
think every State gets more money because there is a significant amount
of money that is added to the pot. My statement is that about 38 States
get a smaller percentage of a larger pot than they did.
Mr. WARNER. Let's talk about the pot. You are addressing the
amendment that is pending before the Senate which we refer to as an
add-on to the underlying bill.
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. The pot I refer to is the total pot after
the add-on. I am saying under this chart of the highway administration,
this came in yesterday.
Mr. WARNER. I have a copy.
Mr. LEVIN. If you look at the right-hand column, at the minuses,
looking at the 6-year percentages with the so-called ``option,'' which
is the committee amendment, 38 of the States have a little minus in
front of them, meaning they usually get a slightly smaller percentage
of the larger pot, which is represented by the amount of money totally
there after the committee amendment is adopted. That is the reference I
made.
Every State gets more money and every State--to put it very bluntly,
say that Michigan contributes an additional $110 million to the highway
fund in this larger pot. That $110 million of the delta, the extra
money going into this pot, to enlarge it, comes from Michigan, and we
get back $100 million. These are hypothetical numbers. That means we
are getting back more money, right? But we have put in, actually, a
larger share of money towards the amount that is going out.
My good friend from Texas, I am sure, would agree it is about time
that the money that goes to the highway fund is distributed to the
States. It is long overdue. We shouldn't be having surpluses built up
from gas tax dollars which our people pay in order to build and
maintain highways. That is long overdue.

My point here, however, is that of the extra amount of that $26
billion that the committee adds, say Michigan's share of that $26
billion is $110 million--I am making up numbers here--and if we get
back from that extra amount $100 million, the answer is, yes, we are
getting back more than we did under the underlying bill, but it still
could be a smaller percentage of the total than we would have gotten
under the underlying bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will yield momentarily.
Let's see if we can narrow the Senator's concern. The Senator's
concern is not with the underlying bill; it is the manner in which the
funds were allocated, roughly $6.9 billion to five programs, and that
$6.9 billion coming off of the total $25.8 billion, is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. The answer is correct. The questions that I have are
relative to the amendment that we don't have the information on.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator expresses at the moment some disagreement as
to how the committee took the total of $25.8 billion, then took a sum
of $6.9 billion and allocated it to five programs; basically, is that
the area in which the Senator has disagreement?
Mr. LEVIN. No, I have questions in that area. I don't have a
disagreement until I get the information, and then I may or may not
have a disagreement.
Mr. WARNER. And that hopefully is forthcoming.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, our dear colleague from Michigan reminds me
of the drowning man that is on the verge of going down for the third
time and we have thrown him an inner tube and he is complaining that he
has to swim a little to get to it.
Mr. LEVIN. Will my friend yield for a quick comment?
Mr. GRAMM. I never stop in the middle of an analogy.

[[Page S1313]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Texas has the
floor.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator might yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind Senators to address each other
through the third party. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. I will get to the point because I'm basically trying to
answer questions the Senator raised.
Let me go back to his made-up example. Currently, every taxpayer in
America who pays gasoline taxes is basically being cheated out of 25
cents on the dollar on average of what they pay in because it says
right on the pump the money is going for highways and it's not. This
amendment, over a 6-year period, eliminates that problem.
The Senator from Michigan is saying if Michigan taxpayers now paying
4.3 cents per gallon are currently paying $110 million in gasoline
taxes in that tax, what if this amendment only gives Michigan $100
million to build roads from this 4.3 cents per gallon. It seems to me
you don't have to have studied high mathematics to understand that
Michigan is a lot better off getting $100 million of the $110 million
than they were getting zero from the $110 million.
When you look at the formula, because of the makeup of the National
Highway System, there are many States that will not get every penny of
it back to their State but they are going to be substantially better
off than they are now and a tremendous amount of the underlying
inequity will be fixed. That is the first point I wanted to make.
The second point I want to make is in terms of offsets, where we are
going to cut other programs to pay for this, that we are going to
decide those offsets in the budget. Every Member of the Senate will
have an opportunity to vote on that.
Before we weep too much about the offsets, I go back to my example of
the rustler who has been stealing our cattle by taking 25 cents out of
every $1 in gasoline tax and spending it on something else. It may be
that in the process someone discovers that this rustler actually gave
money to the First Baptist Church, but are we going to argue that we
don't want to stop rustling because a rustler contributed money when
the plate was passed at the First Baptist Church? The point is, we have
to take the money away. That money should never have been there in the
first place. This money should have been spent on roads from the
beginning.
Finally, before I yield to the Senator, and I will be happy to do it
or yield the floor and let him have the floor, what I will try to do
not just for the Senator from Michigan but for all of our colleagues, I
will try to explain some of the logic of the underlying bill. I'm not
on the committee but I have studied the thing and understand it so that
Senator Byrd and I could write our amendment with Senator Baucus and
Senator Warner, so, in fact, I find myself in possession of information
that I never wanted to have to begin with but I think it is relevant to
this whole debate. I don't think people really understand how the
highway program works. Maybe as one who is a new possessor of this
knowledge, I find it really reflects on this whole problem we are
dealing with.
Let me try to very briefly deviate from my background as a
schoolteacher, and be brief. Let me try to run through it and then
explain the games that people can play if they chose to. Since the
beginning of our highway program, we have had a general rule of thumb,
and that has been a division of money from the highway trust fund. That
portion that goes to highways has gone into two pots. One pot is money
that is available nationally under an account that is overseen by the
Secretary of Transportation and the National Highway Administration,
and that has normally been roughly 10 or 11 percent, total. That has
focused on individual priorities and a series of concerns that have not
generally been dealt with by the allocation to the States. The other 90
percent has gone to the States. This is not a new invention with this
bill. It has been true in every highway bill that we have had. It is
true in this bill.
Now, I could personally go through this bill and take the 10 percent
of items that will be funded under the national account and say there
are a lot of these programs that I am not for. I don't want to create
sadness by talking about what they are, but the point is, since they
deal with concerns for a big country, and Texas is one piece of it--the
most important piece, the largest piece--and shares more interest in
common with the country because we have more diversity than anybody
else, it is true that we have money for building roads on public lands.
We are blessed in Texas in that we were a country first so we have
virtually no public lands. We never thought it made sense when we came
into the Union to have the United States own our State. So we will get
virtually no money out of the account that is available for building
highways on public lands. It is a little over $1 billion, if my memory
serves me right.
Now, I could stand up here and say, ``Look, Texas has got no public
lands to speak of. We are not going to get a penny out of that $1
billion.'' The point being, like the distinguished Presiding Officer
who is from a Western State, he didn't choose to have the Federal
Government own a huge chunk of his State. Probably over half the land
in his State is owned by the Federal Government. I feel sorry for him.
I don't think it is right. I would like to see some of that land back
in private hands, I say to the Presiding Officer. The point is that is
part of a national system. The Presiding Officer can't help it that the
Federal Government owns over half of his State.
So, to adjust, in the 10 percent of the bill, we have a whooping $1
billion that his State will benefit from, and my State won't benefit.
We won't get any of the money. Now, I could do a chart that says you
eliminate that program for funds to be spent on public lands and I
could show Texas gets more money. I can show that Virginia gets more
money. We have money in here for roads on Indian reservations. We had
the most bitter part of the Indian wars in my State. We had Apaches and
Comanches raiding our capital in the 1870s. We have only a couple of
tiny, little Indian reservations in Texas. Oklahoma has vast
quantities, as does Arizona.

Now, I could stand up here and say, well, look, by building roads on
Indian reservations, you are not doing anything for Texas. I could take
that billion dollars for roads on Indian reservations in the 10 percent
national account in the bill--I could strip it out and say, look, you
distribute it to all the States, and every State will gain. In fact,
you would probably get 40 of the 50 States in the Union that would gain
if you did that. But is that how you write a national highway bill?
So the point I am making is that to single out parts of the 10
percent and say that if we eliminated them, we could have more to give
the States, look, if I were writing the highway bill by myself, I would
not even have the 10 percent. I would give all of it to the States. But
I am not writing the highway bill by myself. What I am trying to
explain to people is that when you are singling out programs like the
Appalachian Regional Highway Program, you are singling out a program
that has been in every highway bill since 1965. The money that is being
provided is actually a smaller percentage of the overall bill than
President Clinton requested. The amount of money being provided is a
smaller percent than was spent under the last highway bill, when you
add up all the expenditures.
This is a program that became the law of the land in 1965. The
program is on the verge of moving toward completion. You can single it
out if you want to, but how is it less meritorious than building roads
on public lands? How is it less meritorious than building roads on
Indian reservations? It's part of a series of national priorities.
Now, in case you don't know much about geography, Texas is not part
of Appalachia. My State doesn't benefit one bit from that provision.
But the point is, it has been part of every program since 1965, and it
is part of this 10 percent overhead to deal with specific programs. So
if we could go back and reinvent the world, change the whole highway
system, this logic would make sense. But I think singling out a couple
of programs when there are many others that are more vulnerable--and we
can all play this game--in the end you don't have a highway bill.
Let me say, in terms of density, that I don't have to read very well
to see

[[Page S1314]]

that Texas, which has 3 of the 10 largest cities in the country, does
not benefit a nickel--not a penny--from this density thing. Where did
this density thing come from? First of all, I am not accepting any
responsibility. I am not on the committee. I would love to take it out.
But what is it trying to do?
Well, the old highway bill was written under the 1980 census, which
was outrageous. It happened because the House has been, until the last
reapportionment, dominated by the East and Midwest. All of our formulas
are rigged to take money away from the South and the West and give it
to the East and the Midwest. We all know it. We are beginning to fix it
with this highway bill. But as a result of getting rid of the 1980
census, which is only 18 years old, by doing that we are going to have
some States that are substantial losers, and our colleagues are going
to have to go back to their States and say that in the highway bill we
really got a dramatic change relative to the old bill, basically
because people voted with their feet to move off to California, Texas,
Virginia and Georgia.
What this whole density provision is about is trying to cushion the
blow to those States. So I could offer an amendment--as apparently is
being contemplated by others--to say, strike this density provision.
Let me look here before I say that. Virginia gets nothing out of the
density provision. I will mention one more. Rhode Island gets nothing
from the density provision. So we could offer an amendment to strike
the density provision and give that money to other States, and we could
show that 40 States of the Union benefit and only 10 or 15 lose. But
the purpose was to write a bill that every State in the Union can live
with, and where people, in good conscience, can go home and say that
given where we are, given the growth pattern of the country, we did as
well as we could expect to have done, given what has happened to the
population in the country and the movement of population.
So I want to urge my colleagues to understand that we have always had
a division of roughly 90-10 in the funds for national priorities and to
the States. I wish we had no 10 percent, but we do, and we always have.
Singling out specific programs is simply not fair when we look at the
other programs, whether it's building roads on Indian lands or public
lands, simply because we have no Indian lands in our State, or we have
no public lands to speak of in our State. We need to understand what a
national highway bill is about is dealing with those things.
I want to conclude by going back to ARC. I know more about ARC than I
ever started out wanting to know, given that I am not from there. But I
have had the privilege, in the last year, of working with a man who is
very much committed to Appalachia. When Senator Byrd was born in
Appalachia, it was a big red letter banner day for Appalachia and for
West Virginia. He cares about this program intensely. So people look at
this and say that is a good and ready target. There are only 13 States
in Appalachia, and that means there are 26 Senators. Again, when you
take 100 and subtract 26, you get more than a majority.
I want to be sure that everybody understands the following points:
No. 1. Appalachia has been part of the national section of this bill,
in one form or another, since 1965. I guess Senator Byrd was the only
person who was here in 1965 and who voted for it, but it passed and
it's the law of the land.
No. 2. We have a smaller percentage of the amount of money we are
spending in this bill going to Appalachia than the President asked for.
We have a smaller percentage of this bill going to Appalachia than was
actually funded over the last 6 years as a result of the appropriations
process and the old bill, and so anybody who thinks that this is some
new program that has been put into this bill, that is providing money
that was not there over the last 30 years, or that somehow it is
providing more money as a percentage of the bill than we had in the
past, is simply wrong.
I urge my colleagues, if you are going to single out one little
program, remember that everybody can play this game, whether it's
Indian land roadbuilding or public land roadbuilding, or 25 other
categories; we can each pick some part of the bill that does not
benefit our State and we can try to take that part away to add money to
the formula. But the truth is that this roughly 90-10 formula has been
in place throughout the whole history of the highway bill, and, in
fact, if you knocked out this program and didn't change the makeup of
the highway bill, the Secretary of Transportation would decide where
the money is spent and would probably spend it on exactly the same
thing.

So I wanted our colleagues to understand how the bill is made up, and
I think that, other than the handful of people on the committee, people
don't know. So it looks like some giant conspiracy against them when,
in fact, if you look at the totality of it, it makes sense. Since we
all resent deals we are not part of--I certainly do--these deals they
put together in committee look mysterious. But I think if you
understand how the bill has evolved over the last 30 years and how it
is made up, it is pretty reasonable, again, for the kind of work we are
doing.
I wasn't trying to get into a debate with the Senator from Michigan.
I am from a big-time donor State. My State, under the old highway bill,
got back 77 cents out of every dollar. We are going to get back 91
cents out of every dollar in this bill, and I rejoice. It is progress.
In the future, when we build a vast North-South interstate system to go
with our East-West system, maybe in the next highway bill, people will
be standing here saying that Texas is getting back $2.12 for every
dollar, because now you are building these interstates from Lubbock to
Texarkana.
The point is, that is what a National Highway System is about. When
it works in our favor, we are all quiet about it, hoping nobody
notices. When it works against us, we scream to the heavens. That is
how the system works.
I would be happy to yield the floor and let the Senator from Michigan
speak, or answer a question. I didn't want to stop in the middle of my
analogy, knowing how clever the Senator from Michigan was, knowing he
would destroy it outright.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. It has
been interesting. I may have made a mistake. Perhaps I should have
taken the block of money that was to correct the inequity of the donor
States and put it up there above the line as one of those programs. But
it was a program. While not clearly identified above, it was a program.
Let me give you some examples.
In the 1991 ISTEA I bill--I was a conferee and I was in the second
row and was told to be quiet while the dominating chairmen,
predominantly from the Northeast, controlled it. That bill came out,
and Massachusetts got $2.45; Connecticut, $1.92; New York, $1.25;
Maine, $1.23; New Jersey, $1.09; Pennsylvania, $1.16. The donor States:
South Carolina got 72 cents; Missouri, 85 cents; Michigan, 80 cents;
Mississippi, 83 cents; Virginia, 79 cents; Florida, 82 cents.
You bet I took a block of money and I straightened it out, together
with the support of my distinguished ranking member, the senior Senator
from Montana. We straightened it out. We took a chunk of money and
balanced that thing out so that now, with the underlying bill, they get
90 cents--not these egregious disproportionate sums, but 90 cents.
With the amendment before us, we tried to allocate the dollars so the
donor States came up--as many as we could--to 91 cents. Maybe one or
two were a fraction under, about 90.8 cents. But that's what we tried
to do under this bill. There it is.
I am going to put into the Record at this point a chart, in the
battle of the charts now, to show all of the States and how they fared
under the 1991 bill compared to the underlying bill at 90 percent.
I ask unanimous consent that the chart be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S1315]]

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL APPORTIONMENTS FOR VARIOUS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSALS*
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISTEA P.L. 102-240 Intermodal Surface Transportation
--------------------------------------- Efficiency Act II S. 1173
State --------------------------------------
$ % % HTF $ % % HTF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... 332,076 1.815 0.8181 440,984 1.997 0.9000
Alaska............................ 212,284 1,160 4,5339 273,823 1.240 4.8445
Arizona........................... 256,005 1.399 0.8110 342,955 1.553 0.9000
Arkansas.......................... 262,823 1.437 0.9944 293,697 1.330 0.9205
California........................ 1,670,616 9.133 0.9046 2,020,441 9.150 0.9063
Colorado.......................... 200,876 1.098 0.8602 281,614 1.275 0.9989
Connecticut....................... 352,884 1.929 1.9283 379,110 1.717 1.7161
Delaware.......................... 72,760 0.398 1.3807 103,788 0.470 1.6315
Dist. of Col...................... 92,104 0.504 3.9887 99,792 0.452 3.5799
Florida........................... 768,405 4.201 0.8210 1,016,800 4.605 0.9000
Georgia........................... 544,262 2.975 0.7638 774,165 3.506 0.9000
Hawaii............................ 126,495 0.692 2.6738 131,960 0.598 2.3106
Idaho............................. 125,018 0.683 1,2451 181,076 0.820 1.4939
Illinois.......................... 683,258 3.735 1.0105 734,596 3.327 0.9000
Indiana........................... 408,059 2.231 0.8254 537,118 2.432 0.9000
Iowa.............................. 220,676 1.206 1.0352 291,408 1.320 1.1324
Kansas............................ 210,018 1.148 0.9936 289,137 1.309 1.1331
Kentucky.......................... 285.474 1.561 0.8097 383,071 1.735 0.9000
Louisiana......................... 264,040 1.443 0.8187 391,813 1.774 1.0064
Maine............................. 117,708 0.643 1.2310 126,672 0.574 1.0974
Maryland.......................... 305,888 1.678 1.0020 332,751 1.507 0.9000
Massachusetts..................... 830,024 4.537 2.4582 392,393 1.777 0.9627
Michigan.......................... 514,446 2.812 3.8023 696,628 3.155 0.9000
Minnesota......................... 280,668 1.534 1.0733 330,117 1.495 1.0458
Mississippi....................... 202,329 1.106 0.8345 278,518 1.261 0.9516
Missouri.......................... 404,387 2.211 0.8553 525,443 2.379 0.9206
Montana........................... 161,661 0.884 1.8457 234,074 1.060 2.2139
Nebraska.......................... 142,252 0.778 0.9603 185,431 0.840 1.0369
Nevada............................ 117,301 0.641 1.0027 161,202 0.730 1.1415
New Hampshire..................... 88,413 0.483 1.1842 114,829 0.520 1.2741
New Jersey........................ 521,026 2.848 1.0925 532,188 2.410 0.9244
New Mexico........................ 178,413 0.975 1.1226 231,866 1.050 1.2085
New York.......................... 1,001,465 5.475 1.2562 1,126,672 5.102 1.1707
North Carolina.................... 478,873 2.618 0.8336 624,113 2.826 0.9000
North Dakota...................... 116,258 0.636 1.7645 161,202 0.730 2.0267
Ohio.............................. 655,612 3.584 0.9369 760,300 3.443 0.9000
Oklahoma.......................... 259,702 1.420 0.8421 347,988 1.576 0.9347
Oregon............................ 212,793 1.163 0.8934 284,368 1.288 0.9890
Pennsylvania...................... 889,978 4.865 1.1697 836,244 3.787 0.9104
Rhode Island...................... 106,052 0.580 2.1089 128,078 0.580 2.1098
South Carolina.................... 234,009 1.279 0.7246 350,872 1.589 0.9000
South Dakota...................... 119,442 0.653 1,8165 172,243 0.780 2.1699
Tennessee......................... 365,565 1.998 0.7947 499,764 2.263 0.9000
Texas............................. 1,174,846 6.423 0.8396 1,520,201 6.884 0.9000
Utah.............................. 130,046 0.711 0.8311 190,431 0.862 1.0082
Vermont........................... 79,486 0.435 1.4840 103,788 0.470 1.6052
Virginia.......................... 414,607 2.267 0.7970 565,171 2.559 0.9000
Washington........................ 341,090 1.865 0.9506 405,928 1.838 0.9371
West Virginia..................... 209,819 1.147 1.4239 225,365 1.021 1.2669
Wisconsin......................... 352,373 1.926 0.9544 401,139 1.817 0.9000
Wyoming........................... 115,092 0.629 1.3513 167,827 0.760 1.6323
Puerto Rico....................... 81,874 0.448 N/A 101,332 0.459 N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 18,292,630 100.0 ........... 22,082,486 100.0 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Federal Lands Highway Program funds are excluded from this comparison.

Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. Listening to the Senator talk about eliminating the
tremendous inequity in the 1991 bill, I think it would behoove every
Member of the Senate, when they are looking at how well off they are
under your bill with our amendment, to look at how they did in 1991 and
see that each of the inequities that we chafe under are far diminished
under your bill and, of course, knowing you represent Virginia, and
listening to the fact that on the old highway bill you were sitting in
the back room in obscurity and silence, and now you speak with such
great clarity, it reminds me of the old saying in the part of the
country we are from, which is, ``Save your Confederate money, boys, the
South will rise again.''
Mr. WARNER. Before we invoke too much history here, it wasn't just
the South; it was Michigan and some other States that were in the donor
category. But I am going to put this on the table. So, when the call up
yonder is taken here shortly on this amendment, you can see exactly
where you fared under the 1991 bill compared to where you fare under
this bill. And it is absolutely striking.
Again, I am back to try to be helpful among the several States. There
stands 90 like a stone wall. We tried to get above 90 as best we could
for as many donor States. And I think when the final charts come out, I
can show you exactly where the donor States went under the
recalculations that we get under the amendment.
But I thank the Senator from Texas. It was very interesting to listen
to his rendition, which was accurate, or I would have interjected. It
was accurate as to how these bills have been put through, through the
years. And you can fault the ARC. My State happens to be a beneficiary.
Therefore, when I speak in support of ARC, I do so think that Virginia
is a beneficiary. It is proudly in the Appalachian corridor. But that
program has been there since 1965. It was enacted by the U.S. Senate in
conjunction with the House. As a matter of fact, I think it was William
Jennings Randolph who was then chairman of the committee on which I am
proudly serving, and now under the leadership of Senator Chafee and
Senator Baucus. But that was at that time. And it is a program that is
unfinished, as Senator Byrd pointed out, and hopefully this will take
it almost to completion under this bill.
So I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, if there are other Senators desiring to speak, I will
yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
First, let me assure my good friend from Texas that I agree with most
of what he said, including the reference to Senator Byrd, as not only a
red letter day for West Virginia when Senator Byrd came to the Senate,
but it was a red letter day for the Nation and for the Senate when
Senator Byrd came to the Senate. And his effort on behalf of the
Appalachian Regional Commission is one that I think is a justified
effort.
This is a national bill. I happen to agree with that. The Senator
from Texas made reference to the fact that this is a national bill.
This is also a complicated amendment. Those of us who have been in the
donor status for decades want to understand. There are other Senators
who would like to get the data that hopefully now the Transportation
Department is providing us.

[[Page S1316]]

But for those of us who have given tens of millions, totaling hundreds
of millions of dollars, as donor States, based on formulas which cannot
be justified in our eyes, we surely want to understand what these new
formulas provide, and why.
I asked a question about the new density program. It is a new
program. This is not one that has been in the law for some time like
the ARC or the public lands. This is a new program based on density.
How are those rules divided? For those of us who have dense areas in
our States, why is it that we are not on the list while some others
States are on the list? It may be a very good formula. It may be a fair
formula, taken in context. But it is a new formula and one I surely
want to understand since we have some dense areas in my State.
We have asked for some information. I think it is only fair that we
get this information. It is going to affect how at least some of us may
vote on this amendment. Speaking for myself, it is going to affect how
I vote on this amendment. In some sense, we are better off. There is a
91 percent assurance, we are told, that is built into the law. That is
an improvement over the past.
However, there are some disadvantages to the approach as well. One of
the disadvantages is that we now are creating a very large uncertainty
as to how these added funds are going to be paid for with other
programs. We cannot solve that here. But we all have to understand that
we are taking that risk. For those of us who are still in a significant
donor position, even though it has improved over the last ISTEA, we
have to weigh the risk of losing important discretionary programs
against the improvements that we seek.
My good friend from Texas talked about throwing a lifeline to
somebody who is drowning. Is this a 10-foot lifeline to somebody who is
drowning 20 feet offshore? That is the question we have to analyze.
Does someone in the position of representing a donor State vote for
this because it is an improvement, with all the risks that are there?
Or do we vote no on this because it still embodies for 6 more years an
unfairness that we perceive?
All I am urging upon my colleagues is this: that surely fairness
dictates, if not the outcome of formulas, we be given information upon
which we wish to rely in voting on an amendment in a bill. As I said, I
may vote for this amendment, I may vote for the bill, but we want
information to help us make that judgment. For those of us who have
been in a donor State position for decades, it seems to me that this is
a fair thing for us to ask and a fair thing for us to expect.
I have no need to talk longer on this. I do have a need to get the
information which will permit me to make that assessment, which I have
referred to.
I will suggest the absence of a quorum, unless there is somebody else
who wishes to speak, in order that we can now visit with the
transportation people and obtain that information that we have been
waiting for.
Mr. President, unless there is somebody else who wishes to address
the body at this point, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart that
I referred to of the Federal Highway Administration be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

1998-2003--ISTEA II ADDED FUNDS APPORTIONED BY NET ISTEA II PERCENTAGE
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual apportionments Six-year percentages
allocations for ARC & Density, -----------------------------------------------
State and bonus payments Dollars, Delta
-------------------------------- S.1173, 6-yr Option, 6-yr Delta
S.1173, 6-yr Option, 6-yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. 140,999 543,453 102,454 1.9970 2.0819 0.0850
Alaska.................................................. 273,832 312,932 39,099 1.2400 1.1988 -0.0412
Arizona................................................. 342,967 404,698 61,731 1.5531 1.5504 -0.0027
Arkansas................................................ 293,707 335,644 41,937 1.3300 1.2858 -0.0442
California.............................................. 2,020,393 2,372,013 351,621 9.1490 9.0871 -0.0619
Colorado................................................ 281,603 321,812 40,209 1.2752 1.2329 -0.0423
Connecticut............................................. 379,110 433,131 53,021 1.7167 1.6593 -0.0574
Delaware................................................ 103,791 118,611 14,820 0.4700 0.4544 -0.0156
Dist. of Col............................................ 99,792 114,042 14,250 0.4519 0.4369 -0.0150
Florida................................................. 1,016,835 1,214,381 197,546 4,6046 4.6523 0.0477
Georgia................................................. 774,191 914,267 140,076 3.5058 3.5025 -0.0033
Hawaii.................................................. 131,987 150,818 18,831 0.5977 0.5778 -0.0199
Idaho................................................... 181,083 206,939 25,856 0.8200 0.7928 -0.0272
Illinois................................................ 734,622 884,279 149,658 3.3266 3.3876 0.0610
Indiana................................................. 537,137 633,817 96,680 2.4323 2.4281 -0.0042
Iowa.................................................... 291,411 333,019 41,608 1.3196 1.2758 -0.0438
Kansas.................................................. 289,146 330,434 41,288 1.3093 1.2659 -0.0435
Kentucky................................................ 383,084 473,511 90,427 1.7347 1.8140 0.0793
Louisiana............................................... 391,895 447,919 56,023 1.7746 1.7160 -0.0587
Maine................................................... 126,698 144,810 18,112 0.5737 0.5548 -0.0190
Maryland................................................ 332,762 414,089 81,327 1.5069 1.5864 0.0795
Massachusetts........................................... 392,383 478,422 86,039 1.7768 1.8328 0.0560
Michigan................................................ 696,652 822,044 125,391 3.1547 3.1492 -0.0054
Minnesota............................................... 330,122 377,264 47,142 1.4949 1.4453 -0.0496
Mississippi............................................. 278,522 322,152 43,630 1.2612 1.2342 -0.0271
Missouri................................................ 525,467 600,512 75,045 2.3795 2.3005 -0.0789
Montana................................................. 234,082 267,506 33,424 1.0600 1.0248 -0.0352
Nebraska................................................ 185,430 211,902 26,472 0.8397 0.8118 -0.0279
Nevada.................................................. 161,208 184,226 23,018 0.7300 0.7058 -0.0242
New Hampshire........................................... 114,833 131,229 16,396 0.5200 0.5027 -0.0173
New Jersey.............................................. 532,206 638,198 105,991 2.4100 2.4449 0.0349
New Mexico.............................................. 231,874 264,982 33,108 1.0500 1.0151 -0.0349
New York................................................ 1,126,664 1,324,725 198,061 5.1019 5.0750 -0.0269
North Carolina.......................................... 624,134 744,883 120,748 2.8263 2.8536 0.0273
North Dakota............................................ 161,208 184,226 23,018 0.7300 0.7058 -0.0242
Ohio.................................................... 760,326 916,776 156,450 3.4430 3.5121 0.0691
Oklahoma................................................ 348,008 397,705 49,697 1,5759 1.5236 -0.0523
Oregon.................................................. 284,363 324,966 40,603 1.2877 1.2449 -0.0428
Pennsylvania............................................ 836,421 1,054,347 217,926 3.7876 4.0392 0.2516
Rhode Island............................................ 128,083 146,371 18,288 0.5800 0.5607 -0.0193
South Carolina.......................................... 350,884 413,990 63,107 1.5889 1.5860 -0.0029
South Dakota............................................ 172,249 196,844 24,595 0.7800 0.7541 -0.0259
Tennessee............................................... 499,781 615,535 115,754 2.2632 2.3581 0.0949
Texas................................................... 1,520,253 1,793,886 273,632 6.8842 6.8723 -0.0119
Utah.................................................... 190,417 217,615 27,198 0.8623 0.8337 -0.0286
Vermont................................................. 103,791 118,611 14,820 0.4700 0.4544 -0.0156
Virginia................................................ 565,190 699,238 134,048 2.5594 2.6788 0.1194
Washington.............................................. 405,917 463,879 57,962 1.8381 1.7771 -0.0610
West Virginia........................................... 225,413 305,472 80,059 1.0207 1.1703 0.1495
Wisconsin............................................... 401,153 473,357 72,204 1.8165 1.8134 -0.0031
Wyoming................................................. 167,833 191,797 23,964 0.7600 0.7348 -0.0252
Puerto Rico............................................. 101,332 115,802 14,470 0.4589 0.4436 -0.0152
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Apportioned................................. 22,083,248 26,103,083 4,019,835 100.0000 100.0000 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S1317]]

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor because we are presently in
a quorum call and I thought it might be a good time for me not to
overly impose on the Senate, since the Senate is not having any debate
at the moment anyway.
Mr. President, Sir Francis Bacon, who was the Lord Chancellor and who
ultimately went to the Tower--he wasn't executed, but he went to the
Tower. In 1621, he was impeached and he was sent to the Tower for
accepting bribes, which he admitted. He said there are three things
that make a nation great and prosperous: a fertile soil, busy
workshops, and easy conveyance for men and goods from place to place.
The Persians knew the importance of good roads, and had a network of
roads that connected Susa and Ecbatana and Sardis and Babylon and
Ninevah and Carchemish. Cyrus the Great was the king of Anshan in 559
B.C., and he became the king of all Persia when he defeated the Medes
in 550. From 550 B.C. until 529 B.C. Cyrus ruled. Cyrus was killed in a
battle with the Massagetai, whose ruling queen was named Tomyris--
Tomyris. It's a very interesting story.
Herodotus, the author of history, tells us about it. I won't repeat
that part today. Cyrus was killed in 529 B.C. and Cambyses, his son--
Cambyses II--ruled from 529 to 522 B.C. Then Darius the Great ruled
from 522 B.C. to 485 B.C.
Darius the Great--and Herodotus tells us this--Darius became king
upon the neigh of a horse. He and some others joined in a conspiracy
and assassinated an imposter to the throne. Upon the death of the
imposter, these seven conspirators, of which Darius was one, decided
they had to make a decision as to who would rule. They had a very
interesting discussion about democracy and aristocracy and monarchy.
Herodotus tells us all about it. It would be interesting for Senators
to read that, or to reread it in the event they have already done so.
In any event, they decided at sunrise they would go out into the
suburbs, these several conspirators, and that the first horse that
neighed, the rider of that horse would be king of Persia. Darius
subsequently told his groom, Oebares, about this and said, ``This is
what we have agreed upon. Do you have any ideas?'' Oebares said, ``Yes,
don't you be concerned about it. Your horse will be the first to
neigh.''
That evening, Oebares took the favorite mare of Darius' horse into
the suburbs and tied her to a tree. He then took Darius' horse to where
the mare was tethered, and, after a little while, returned with
Darius's horse into the city for the night. The next morning, Darius
and the other conspirators rode out into the suburbs with their horses.
As they came near to the area where the mare was still tethered,
Darius' horse neighed. The other conspirators immediately fell down
upon the ground and proclaimed Darius to be the new king of all Persia.
This is according to Herodotus.
Darius the Great built great roads. The Egyptians knew how to build
good roads, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, but the Romans were the
truly great roadbuilders. Some of the roads and bridges that the Romans
built hundreds of years ago are still in use. Many Senators who have
visited Rome and have gone out to Tivoli--a few hours drive--have
traveled the Old Appian Way, which was built by Appius Claudius Caecus,
beginning in 312 B.C. and extending from Rome to Capua and on to
Brundisium. The Romans knew how to build roads. They understood that in
the center of the road there had to be a crown so that the water would
drain off on each side and that on each side there had to be a ditch
for the runoff water. These roads enabled the Roman legions to reach
any part of the vast Roman empire. The Romans were great roadbuilders.
And they built bridges, some of which are still in use today.
Now, roads in our time are very important and we have heard the
expression that America is a country on wheels. People are on wheels.
They are going hither, thither and yon at all times.
The Department of Transportation has indicated that the highways in
all of the national system have deteriorated and that only 39 percent
of the highways in the national system are in ``good'' condition.
We now have this highway bill that has come to the floor and we have
already discussed the amendment, how it came about, and the meetings
that took place in the majority leader's office. I said before and I
say again, the majority leader performed a tremendous service in
inviting those who were participants in the discussions, inviting them
to his office and sitting with us each day, assisting us in reaching an
agreement which now takes the form of an amendment to the ISTEA II
bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
I came into these meetings, in a way, as someone out of the highways
and hedges. I am not on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I
am not on the Budget Committee. The Environment and Public Works
Committee has jurisdiction over this legislation. I am not on that
committee. Mr. Baucus is the ranking member of that committee. Mr.
Chafee is the chairman. Mr. Warner is a member of that committee and is
chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of that committee. Mr.
Domenici is chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Gramm of Texas is
a member of the Budget Committee. Those were the participants. I
believe Mr. D'Amato sat in on one or two meetings. He is chairman of
the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the mass transit
moneys. That was not part of our amendment.

So, as I say, I was a stranger, in effect, to these meetings, not
being a member of the committees that were directly involved. But I got
into this thing because of Appalachia and because the moneys that were
being deposited into the highway trust fund were not being spent for
highways. And I talked with various Senators, upon one occasion with
the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus. I said, ``We need help on
Appalachian highways.'' He said, ``Well, we need more money, we need
more money.'' I said, ``OK, let's spend the money that is going into
the highway trust fund. That is what the people think it is being
collected for; let's spend it.''
Mr. Gramm of Texas had offered an amendment last year in the Finance
Committee to transfer the 4.3-cent gas tax, of which 3.45 cents is for
highways and 0.85 cent, or a little less than 1 penny per gallon, is
for mass transit.
Mr. Gramm had taken the bull by the horns and had, in the Finance
Committee, offered an amendment, which was adopted, to transfer the 4.3
cents gas tax into the trust fund.
Senator Gramm's amendment was later adopted by the Congress in the
Taxpayer Relief Act. Congress adopted that proposal, and that money has
been going into the highway trust fund but not being spent.
For those two reasons, I invited myself to the ``party.'' I came up
with this fine team of Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, and we all said,
``Let's spend that money on highways and bridges,'' and we accordingly
joined in sponsoring the amendment to do so.
That is how the Romans would have spent it. That is how the Etruscans
would have spent it. I think that if Darius and the Persians were here
today, they would say spend it on roads.
The four of us worked hard over a period of several weeks and months
to get other cosponsors on the amendment. In the final analysis, we got
54 cosponsors in all. The day we reached an agreement on the amendment,
may I say to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, I received a call
from a 55th Senator saying, ``I want to get on that amendment.''
So it is never too late--never too late, never too late--to go to the
altar, never too late to get religion, never too late to join in a good
cause.
There were several Senators who said they did not want to cosponsor
the amendment for various reasons, but if it came to a vote, they would
support the amendment. I hope that will be the case.

[[Page S1318]]

This bill does not please everybody. I have not talked about
Appalachia because I sense that there is a tendency for some people to
think that I am only interested in Appalachia. However, I listened to
Senator Gramm just a little while ago make an excellent case for
Appalachia.
Many times I have read Daniel Webster's reply to Senator Hayne of
South Carolina on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 26 and 27, 1830. It
was on January 26 and 27 that Webster took the floor in the old Chamber
just down the hall and made his magnificent reply to Senator Hayne of
South Carolina.
Many of the schoolboys in this country years ago memorized those
speeches by Webster. We used to do those things. Webster spoke from
about 12 pages of notes, one of the great, great speeches of all time,
perhaps not the greatest. Demosthenes in his oration on the Crown
probably delivered the greatest oration of all time. Cicero was once
asked which of Demosthenes' speeches he liked best, and he said, ``The
longest.''
Webster, in his debate with Hayne, made my case concerning ``a road
over the Alleghanies.'' I have quoted him a number of times over the
years. I will not do that today. The record has been made.
But I could not have said it better than did Senator Gramm earlier
today.
So much for Appalachia at this point. I came here today to speak on
the overall amendment. The adoption of this amendment signals a
critical milestone in restoring integrity to our highway trust fund and
the trust of the traveling public--the trust of the traveling public in
their Federal Government. You drive up to the gas tank and you buy
gasoline; you pay 18.3 cents on every gallon of gasoline in Federal
tax--18.3 cents.
The ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who
knows a lot about these things--I am not supposed to know a lot about
this subject; don't know a lot about anything probably, not as much as
I used to know on many subjects.
The Senator from Montana will correct me if I make a misstep here.
The American people when they drive up to that gas pump see the little
cylinder running round and round and round, and they know that the gas
is flowing out of that nozzle into the tank of their car. As that
cylinder rolls, the gas is pouring out of the nozzle. In their mind's
eye, they should also see that as that cylinder rolls and the gas flows
into the tank, there is also money flowing from their purchase into the
highway trust fund. Just as the cylinder rolls, that money is flowing
right into the highway trust fund.
So, there is 18.3 cents on the gallon that they pay in Federal tax.
As Senator Gramm has put it a number of times--the only part we are
talking about here is the last 4.3 cents permanent gas tax that was
added by the Congress--we are not talking about the cattle that were
rustled before the 4.3 cents tax was enacted, we just want you to stop
rustling the cattle.
In any event, we are talking about the 4.3 cents. Actually, in our
amendment, we are talking about the 3.45 cents of that 4.3 cents, and
we say that the people believe that that money is going into the
construction and repair and maintenance of the highway system.
That trust fund was created in 1956. I am probably the only Member of
the Senate who was in Congress at the time that trust fund was created.
That was during the Eisenhower administration, when the interstate
system of highways was created, all of which has been completed. That
trust fund is what we are talking about. The 4.3 cents gas tax is going
into the trust fund, and it should be spent on highways.
My colleagues and I who cosponsor this amendment are simply saying
let's keep faith with the American people.
Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner and I have toiled mightily over these
last several months to boost the resources available over the next 6
years to better meet the needs of our Nation's transportation
infrastructure and better spend the resources that are collected from
the public and deposited in the highway trust fund.
Over the last several years, spending on our Nation's highways has
been restricted so severely that the highway account of the highway
trust fund now shows an unspent balance of more than $12 billion, money
that sits idle in the trust fund, serving only the purpose of
offsetting the Federal deficit at a time when our roadways and bridges
are deteriorating at a rapid rate and our constituents are required to
sit in ever-worsening traffic jams.
This past summer, the Senate adopted the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
which, through the efforts of my colleague Senator Gramm, took the 4.3
cents gas tax initially levied for deficit reduction and moved that
revenue into the Highway Trust Fund. As I indicated earlier, of that
4.3 cents, 3.45 cents was newly-deposited into the highway account of
the highway trust fund. However, the ISTEA II bill reported by the
Environment and Public Works Committee, S. 1173, did not authorize one
penny--one penny--of that additional revenue to be spent on our
Nation's highways and bridges. It was at this time--part of this is a
repetition of what I have said earlier--it was at this time that
Senator Gramm and I joined forces to mount a campaign to amend the
committee bill so as to allow the spending of the resources of the 4.3
cents--spend it.
We were very pleased to be joined in our efforts by Senators Baucus
and Warner, respectively, the ranking member and chairman of the
Surface Transportation Subcommittee.
It has been a vigorous battle that we have waged here over the past
several weeks trying to gain the minds and the hearts of other
Senators. Up to one week ago we had 54 cosponsors, and then we got a
55th one. But we were faced with very able adversaries in these
meetings in Senator Lott's office--very able adversaries in Senator
Domenici and Senator Chafee.
One week ago, the majority leader, Mr. Lott, invited us to his
chambers in an effort to negotiate a compromise on this issue. And I
have commended and will commend again the fair-minded manner in which
the majority leader presided over those negotiations.
Senators Baucus and Gramm and Warner and I were not inclined to
negotiate a solution that in any way abandoned our principle of
authorizing the spending of the revenue in the highway account of the
highway trust fund. And we made that point very clear. Even so, there
were other factors that appropriately were brought into the discussion
and merited the attention of all participants.
Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office has reestimated the
revenue stream of the 4.3 cents coming into the trust fund, as well as
the overall cost of the committee-reported ISTEA bill. It also
reestimated the total amount of new revenue coming into the trust fund
over the life of the next highway bill, 1998-2003. The changes
reflected in this amendment, in comparison to the original Byrd-Gramm-
Baucus-Warner amendment, largely reflect the appropriate differences in
CBO's estimates.
The original Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorized $30.9
billion, an amount equivalent to CBO's original estimate of the revenue
to the highway account of the trust fund for the period, fiscal years
1999-2003. CBO reestimated this revenue stream to be a level of $27.4
billion. This amendment that we are cosponsoring, that we are presently
considering today, totals $25.9 billion of the $27.4 billion that we
had asked for. So we came down from $27.4 billion to $25.9 billion.
And, as such, this amendment covers 94 percent of our initial goal.
Now, Mr. President, I have been in several high-level negotiations in
my public career of 52 years. It is rare that I am offered 94 percent
of my original position and, as such, I, along with Senators Gramm,
Baucus and Warner, embraced this final compromise. And as was true
under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, every State--every State;
every State; every State--will see substantially increased highway
funding authorized in this bill.
Now, we brought money to the table. And I can understand how
everybody now wants a chunk of that money that we brought to the table.
And they should have a chunk. I came to the Senate from the House of
Representatives when there were 48 States in the Union. And when I was
sworn in on January 3, 1959, the two Alaska Senators were sworn in with
me. There were 96 Senators, and those two Alaska Senators that were
sworn in with me

[[Page S1319]]

made 98 Senators. Later that year, the two new Hawaii Senators came in
to make a total of 100 Senators.
Well, 50 States in the United States are benefiting under this
amendment. I wanted to see the tide rise for every State--the tide
would rise and lift the boats for all the States. I wanted to see that
money taken out of the trust fund and spent for highways and bridges in
all 50 States.
And I wanted the people of Appalachia, who have waited 32 years, to
see their boats rise. I wanted to see a consistent, secure source of
funding for those Appalachian highways. Appalachia consists of 13
States, 200,000 square miles, 22 million people in Appalachia. We are
all concerned about helping the disadvantaged and minorities.
Well, here is a whole region of people, stretching from southwest New
York down the spine of the Appalachians into northern Mississippi and
Alabama, people who have been disadvantaged. Yes. We are also a
minority in some ways, a minority of people for whom the general
prosperity of the Nation has not been fully enjoyed.
I was here when Congress passed the legislation authorizing the
Appalachian Development highway system in 1965. For the entire
Appalachian region, 78 percent of the highways have been completed--78
percent. In West Virginia, only 74 percent of the Appalachian highways
have been completed. West Virginia is the only State among the 13
States that is wholly within Appalachia.
The people of Appalachia have been promised this a long time. It,
too, is a part of the Nation.
So, out of the roughly $26 billion in our amendment, yes, $2.5
billion is for Appalachia. Not just for West Virginia, but the 13
States of Appalachia. I am proud of Appalachia, proud to be a West
Virginian. I asked for only a small portion, $2.5 billion, for the 13
Appalachian States, and all the rest of the money that I helped to
bring to the table can be spread throughout the 50 States.
Every State--every State--will see substantially increased dollars as
a result of this amendment. Moreover, Senator Domenici's participation
in these negotiations has given rise to an understanding that
additional outlays will be found through the budget resolution to
enable the Appropriations Committee to fund these additional
authorizations.

I thank Senator Domenici, who brought his considerable expertise on
budgetary matters to the negotiating table. Here is a little bit more
about Appalachia. I have already spoken about Appalachia, but I will
read it. It won't take long.
Regarding the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), I have
worked long and hard to secure contract authority authorizations for
the program in the new highway bill.
Let the States in Appalachia draw down contract authority from a
reliable source of funds and complete their system, and in doing so,
they, too, will lift all the books of the Nation.
In January of 1997, over a year ago, I visited the President in the
Oval Office and urged him to include contract authority authorizations
for the Appalachian Highway System in his ISTEA II proposal. He
expressed his support for my position and, subsequently, did include
$2.19 billion in contract authority in his ISTEA II proposal.
Under the agreement that has been reached, authorizations of contract
authority for the Appalachian Highway System will result in a total of
$2.19 billion in authorized contract authority over the six years,
1998-2003. This is the same amount as requested by the President, a
compromise which I am willing to accept.
Let me emphasize that these funds will not be earmarked in any way.
They will be allocated to the states on the basis of the mileage yet to
be completed and on the cost to complete that mileage.
At markup the day before yesterday, the Environment and Public Works
Committee utilized the new resources that were agreed to in the
negotiations to satisfy the concerns of several other members from
several other regions of the country. The amendment includes additional
authorizations for the donor states, for parks and refuge roads, and
for a new ``density'' program.
As I say, each of us would like to have more in this bill. I don't
watch TV very much. I am very selective about what I watch on that
magnificent medium, but I do watch these presentations that come along
from time to time that show us what is happening out in animal country.
I see a group of animals chasing another animal. I see the powerful
lion, a herd of lions, and they are stalking, stalking, stalking a poor
gazelle, a zebra, or some other animal. Finally the lion--ah, the king
of beasts!
I remember the old fable in which a fox and a lion were having a
discussion, and the fox said, ``Look, I have many whelps, and you have
only one.'' The lion answered and said, ``Yes I have only one, but that
is a lion.''
The lion closes in for the kill. The lion attacks the victim, and
then all the other lions rush in and seize a share of the kill. They
want in on the kill. That is like it is sometimes in politics.
I hope that with the adoption of this amendment the Senate will move
rapidly to debate the remaining amendments to the bill so we can ensure
the earliest possible opportunity to send a comprehensive 6-year
transportation bill to the President. I remind my colleagues that,
including today, there are 33 sessions remaining through May 1. Come
the stroke of that clock, 12 o'clock midnight on May 1, no State can
obligate an additional dollar for highways. We have to move rapidly to
adopt a highway program. We must remember that our colleagues in the
other body have yet to act on a 6-year highway bill. With the breaking
of this logjam, I hope our colleagues in the other body will move
expeditiously to pass a robust multiyear highway bill that meets or
exceeds the levels authorized here today so that the authorizing
committees can get to conference and send a bill to the President prior
to May 1.

Before I yield the floor, I want to thank sincerely our minority
leader, Senator Daschle, who carefully monitored our progress and
supported our efforts. Again, I thank my principal cosponsors, Senators
Gramm, Baucus and Warner. We did not allow ourselves to be divided in
this effort, and the level of funding in this amendment reflects the
success we enjoy by remaining united.
Finally, let me thank Senators Domenici and Chafee, two fine
committee chairmen, who are equally able today as allies as they were
as adversaries at an earlier time. This is an important bill to you who
are listening and watching via television and radio. This is for you
and it is for your children--your children.

An old man traveling a lone highway
Came at evening, cold and gray
To a chasm vast and wide and steep,
With waters rolling cold and deep.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim;
The sullen stream held no fears for him.
But he turned, when he reached the other side,
And he built a bridge to span the tide.

``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim standing near,
``You are wasting your strength in building here.
Your journey will end with the passing day,
And you never again will travel this way.
You have crossed the chasm deep and wide;
Why build you a bridge at eventide?``

The builder lifted his old gray head.
``Good friend, in the path I have come,'' he said,
``There followeth after me today
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm, which was but naught to me,
To that fair youth might a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim.
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know the time is running out on the
debate on this major amendment, the amendment that is in the nature of
a substitute. But I wanted to take about 5 minutes and express my views
about it.
Frankly, it is common knowledge around here that I was not in favor
of moving quickly with the ISTEA bill. But clearly, we are ready now.
We have

[[Page S1320]]

had ample opportunity to discuss how much money is coming into the
trust fund from the 4.3 cents, how much contract authority ought to be
obligated to use it up during the next 5 years. Part of that would be
in 1998. So it is a 6-year cycle. We arrived at a conclusion that is
pretty clear and pretty close to fair, in my opinion. In fact, I think
it is about as well as we can do.
America needs highways. The U.S. Government has a lot of programs it
is involved in that are not its responsibility. But there is no
question that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to
appropriately handle the gasoline tax money and to let our States build
roads with it. So, in a very real sense, it is a very high priority,
because for many things that we spend money on, we are not, in a sense,
as trustees, obligated to spend money for those things. And there are
scores of them.
So I have come to the conclusion that the dollar number of $173
billion as the total expenditure over the next 5 years is a right
number, consisting of the gasoline tax of 4.3 cents which used to be in
the general fund and is now in the trust fund. I believe it is going to
help our States in many ways, and I think in many parts of the United
States it is going to provide some very, very healthy employment where
it is needed.
In addition, it seems to me that the chairman of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, with the able assistance of Senator
Baucus as its ranking member, and the entire committee, all of whom
have voted in favor of this amendment, have put together a very good
cross section of the kinds of things we need in these changing times to
carry out our responsibility with reference to this gasoline money and
get some national programs that are necessary and put as much of it as
we can--91 percent minimum--to every State, as I understand it, in
return for their dollars so that they can begin this process of gearing
up to build more roads. And they will take a little while for that.
This is a very big increase. They are not going to be able to start
next month with a maximum effort in this program. It will take the rest
of this year and part of next year before it is actually built up to
the maximum.
But I think the American people, probably on more than anything else
we are going to be voting on around here--a broad cross section, not a
little special interest or a sliver of our society, but a very broad
cross section--want more roads, if we have gasoline tax money to pay
for them. And many States have put their own gasoline tax on it and are
even doing more.
There is nothing more frustrating for the people in my home State in
a growing city to find out--already when we are not even 1 million in
population--that their roads are clogged, the freeways are not working,
and nothing causes them to wonder more what is going on in terms of
planning and appropriate expenditure of resources. We are about to say
to them that I think this is about as good as we can do, with all of
the competing interests. This is about as fair a program for all of the
sovereign States and for the kind of special highway research and the
like that is necessary.
So from my standpoint, I am on the amendment. I wasn't on the
original Byrd-Gramm amendment. We had some very lengthy debates trying
to arrive at the right dollar number--we did-- that permit me in good
conscience to say that we have a good bill. There are some very
legitimate questions. And, if there were Senators here, they could
probably ask me, with some degree of difficulty--and I would have some
degree of difficulty answering them--that is, since every year we put
in an appropriated amount for these highways that comes within the
annual cap that we must live with, the annual total domestic program
spending, how are we going to add this to the entourage of American
programs that exist and still meet that cap when we didn't contemplate
this program?
Let me repeat, I see no difficulty doing that for the next year. We
have to find just a little over $1 billion to accomplish that purpose
in the first year. It grows a little bit, because contract authority is
slow to spend, and it will get bigger. In the fourth and fifth year, it
will be bigger, and then well beyond the caps that will be spent. But
caps won't be around in the last year of this expenditure. Nonetheless,
I believe that since this is so vitally important, that we will find
the wherewithal to meet our caps--that is, meet our total domestic
expenditures--and, yet, be able to fund this program.
If some Senator, insisting on knowing precisely what program would be
constrained, cut back or eliminated in order to pay for it, I wouldn't
be prepared to tell you that. But I am prepared to tell you that the
Budget Committee will have to do that. It will make some
recommendations on how we pay for this program and maintain the
authenticity and variety of our caps where we believe that our balanced
budget will be a balanced budget. I think we can get there.
I thank everybody who participated, and all who have joined today in
this amendment can say they were part of the original amendment which
pushed this forward. And I have no quibble with them. There were a lot
of Senators on that--not quite as many as the proponents would have
liked. I had a little bit to do with that. I asked some not to go on so
that we could make an agreement. I hope they are not feeling put upon,
having waited and now to be able to vote for this bill and be on it. I
don't like to do that, but I sort of thought it would be better for
everyone if we slowed up a little bit. And it turned out well.
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. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we spent a good deal of time this
afternoon without any action on the floor, in quorum calls. We want
very much to get on with this bill. People ought to bring over their
amendments. If they have problems--as you know, we are just dealing
solely with the so-called Chafee amendment, which is the major
amendment dealing with the increased financing for a whole series of
programs. I see no reason why we should not go to a vote. No one has
brought over any amendments. Nobody is proposing anything here on the
floor. We have worked out the ones who have. We have worked them out.
Others say they are going to get together. They may be along. It is all
very indefinite. I see no reason why at a quarter of 3 we should not
have a vote.
So, Mr. President, that is the tilt I have, because I want to get on
with this bill. There are other lengthy amendments after this. This is
not the last amendment by a long shot. There are other amendments that
we have to consider. We have one involving disadvantaged business
enterprises and a whole series of others. There are some 100-plus
amendments out there. Clearly, hopefully, they are not all going to be
brought up, but we ought to get on with this. If people have problems,
come on over here.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I chime in with the remarks of the
distinguished Senator, chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee, and
encourage Senators who do have amendments on this underlying amendment
to come on over. I am going to encourage the chairman to go to a final
vote on this amendment in the next 25 minutes, by a quarter of 3.
Senators have had more than ample notice all day long, certainly this
afternoon, and having heard from the chairman and from myself, all the
offices around, they have about 25 minutes to get here. That is more
than fair. I think it is, frankly, in fairness to other Senators who
want to get on with this bill, move on with it--it's in fairness to
them that we vote by a quarter to 3 on this final amendment. Unless
Senators come to the floor with their amendments where we can work out
some kind of time agreement in some expeditious manner, I really
strongly encourage the chairman to vote at quarter to 3 if there are no
pending amendments.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, to the Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S1321]]

Mr. INHOFE. I share the frustration of the chairman and ranking
member. I advise them I have an amendment which is at the desk.
Everything has been worked out with the minority, majority, EPA. In a
very few minutes I would like to set aside any business to take that
up. It should be a very short amendment and should be voice voted.
Mr. CHAFEE. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma. He has worked
with us, starting last night. I just finished a conversation with the
Administrator of EPA. The Senator and the Administrator have worked out
their problems. Certainly it is something I can accept, and I will have
an opportunity to discuss it with the ranking member, and I am
confident he will find it acceptable, too. That's what we want to do.
Let's get on with these things. The Senator from Oklahoma has been over
here.
I just want to say to the Senator from Oklahoma, as soon as we get
his worked out then we will move to set aside this and see if we can't
dispose of his amendment quickly.
The Senator from Florida?
Mr. MACK. I just want to address myself to comments that were made by
Senator Levin a little earlier with respect to, frankly, those of us
who are considered donor States. We are still looking for more
information. I understand from your point of view we have all the
information that there is to have, and we ought to have sufficient data
to make decisions about where we are on this amendment.
I would say to the distinguished Senator that last evening several of
us met with our staffs, going over, asking questions about what the
impact of the amendment would be to our individual States. There was no
clarity last night. We called and asked for a meeting this morning with
individuals from the highway department, to come down and go over the
data with us. They did so this morning. We asked for additional
information. They are working on getting that information back to us.
We hope sometime this afternoon that information would be available to
us. We will then be in a better position to evaluate just exactly where
we are.
I must say, maybe it is because I am dealing from a position of real
extreme frustration, representing a State that we believe under the old
proposal had about 77 cents back for what we had contributed in the
past, in the last year. I remember the debates and the discussions that
we had 5 years ago, kind of saying, ``This is never going to happen to
us again,'' that is being a donor State to the extent that we have
been.
So we are concerned and we do not feel that we have enough data to
make a decision. We think it is unfair to say, let's just go ahead and
move this amendment at this time. We do not have, and have not had, the
time that you all have had over these last several months to be working
on this bill. We have this opportunity now to try to evaluate what the
amendment does. We are making a reasonable request. We are not trying
to delay the bill. So, I ask the amendment be set aside until we have
an opportunity to get this information and we can then discuss how we
proceed.
Mr. CHAFEE. I say to the distinguished Senator from Florida, I would
be very reluctant to set this aside. It has been my experience in this
place, once you set it aside, if we had 10 problems now, we will have
30 problems by tomorrow as everybody's staff gins up more problems in
response to the legislation before us.
I don't know----
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe one solution here--there is no perfect solution.
Maybe one solution might be to vote on this amendment, and Senators who
have concerns about this amendment can state them, that is, they are
voting for it kind of on reservation or something like that, pending
information that they get, and reserve the opportunity to offer
amendments at a later time. I say that because this amendment, I
suspect, is going to pass. Therefore, that will have passed and we will
be done with it. Then we can still address the concerns that the
Senator from Florida may or may not have, and having passed this
amendment doesn't put him in a disadvantageous position.
Mr. WARNER. I think in our discussions you intended a voice vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. A voice vote would be more helpful to the Senators who do
not know.
Mr. WARNER. I think the senior managers of the bill would be willing
to accept that.
Mr. CHAFEE. You guessed it right.
Mr. WARNER. Then the bill is open for amendments throughout the
course of further deliberations.
Mr. MACK. Again, I appreciate the response. I understand. Each of us
has had the opportunity to manage a bill. We know how we want to keep
that bill moving. The longer it lays out there, the more difficulties
it attracts. So I understand the concerns of the managers.
Give us a few moments, those of us who are the donor States, an
opportunity to take a look at this and see how we might proceed.
Mr. CHAFEE. If the distinguished Senator from Florida is talking
about a few moments, he is stirring my heart.
Mr. MACK. We might have a several-hour debate on what the definition
of ``moment'' is.
Mr. CHAFEE. We all know what ``moment'' means. If you want several
moments, you go to it. As of now, I'm saying everybody come on over
here with their amendments, all individuals come with their amendments,
and hopefully we would like to have a vote by a quarter of 3. But
because of the urging of the Senator from Florida, a few moments will
get us along for a while.
Please, all I would say to the Senator from Florida, a few moments
really doesn't mean a meeting at 6 o'clock tonight.
Mr. MACK. I understand.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield for a moment?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I think what the Senator from Florida is saying--I
concur--is we would be able in a few moments to know whether the
suggestion of the Senator from Montana would be acceptable to us, and
that could literally be in a few moments, and then we could have a
voice vote promptly, and then, with the understanding set forth and the
suggestions set forth by the Senator from Montana, be able to consider
the data which we expect later on today at a later time.
Mr. CHAFEE. You have a few moments. Come on back and see us in a few
moments. Let's all agree that a few moments isn't very long.
Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to, if I could, quantify a little bit what a
few moments means. Can the Senators tell us that a few moments means no
more than 15 minutes?
Mr. MACK. We might debate this issue for an hour or two----
Mr. BAUCUS. At least let us know in 15 minutes whether you can
accept.
Mr. MACK. It was indicated a little earlier that there would be maybe
25 minutes. I think our definition of ``moment'' would fit within that
range.
Mr. BAUCUS. We have used up about 10 minutes of it.
Mr. CHAFEE. All right.
Mr. BAUCUS. OK; 25. Mr. President, 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. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I previously announced, we want to get
on with this legislation. It is my intention that at 3 o'clock, I will
ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1684 be agreed to, the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the amendment be considered
as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Wyden and Sessions be added as
cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is the intention to seek a voice vote;
we want to make that clear.
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, it will be my intention, as I say, at 3 o'clock to
proceed with a voice vote on the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. In the interim, if Senators wish to talk on this subject
or others, I will reserve the time at 3

[[Page S1322]]

o'clock to proceed with this unanimous consent request.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I want to say to the Senator that this is acceptable to
this Senator as a way of proceeding, so we can preserve our rights
after we get the material we have been waiting for to determine whether
or not we wish at that time to offer amendments relating to the subject
we discussed this morning. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. We, obviously, hope the Senator will not have an
amendment, but should he have one, we shall be delighted to receive it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might, Senator Mack wishes to
associate himself with the remarks of the Senator from Michigan. He was
very active in the discussions on this, as was the Senator from
Michigan. So we thank them as a group speaking on behalf of the donor
States. I have been one of the major spokesmen for donor States, and I
am glad to have the assistance of my colleagues.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senators on the floor who are
concerned about protecting their rights, and I thank them for being so
accommodating. We have worked out an arrangement where we can move
forward with this bill and, yet, they can still protect their rights
and offer amendments if they so choose. I thank them.
It is my understanding, Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan
would like to have a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to have a colloquy, if my good
friend from Montana is able to do it at this time.
Is it the intent of this bill, assuming this amendment is adopted, to
return to the States 91 percent of their share of contributions to the
trust fund or 91 cents of each gas tax dollar sent to the highway trust
fund?
Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my friend, of the amounts apportioned to the
States, the goal is to give States 91 percent of their percent share of
contributions to the highway trust fund.
Mr. LEVIN. So, it is not true, then, because of various
administrative, research and special funds set aside and not
distributed to all the States, that the total dollars returned to each
State would be less than 91 percent of its contributions to the highway
trust fund highway account?
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. However, let me make an important
point. In the underlying bill, 10 percent of the money is used for
things such as research, emergency relief for natural disasters and
administrative costs. That 10 percent is not counted in the calculation
of the State's share. But this is not a new concept. These are national
programs. It is the approach that has been taken in the previous ISTEA
program as well. It is not new. In the amendment, I say to the Senator,
we have given Michigan actually a better deal.
In this amendment, we calculate the dollars needed to give you a 91-
percent share. This calculation, for the first time, includes other
programs. Included in the calculation under the amendment are the
additional amounts apportioned to the States, that is $18.9 billion,
plus the $1.8 billion in the new density program and the $1.89 billion
in the Appalachian highway program. The result is that 91 percent is
now calculated on a larger universe of funds than in the underlying
bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. Just to be clear, the 91-percent share
does not assure a minimum 91 cents back on each dollar sent to the
trust fund; in terms of cents on the dollar guaranteed, a 91-percent
share is going to be less for each State, as it always has been, than
91 cents on the dollar.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend and yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment No. 1684 be laid aside until 4:10, at which time it would
then come up under the prior arrangement that we had.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has an
amendment.
Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 1687

(Purpose: To ensure that the States have the necessary flexibility to
implement the new standards for ozone and particulate matter)

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
ask for its consideration.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.

The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), for himself and Mr.
Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 1687.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE .--OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS

Findings and Purposes

Section 1. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) There is a lack of air quality monitoring data for fine
particle levels, measured as PM2.5, in the United
States and the States should receive full funding for the
monitoring efforts;
(2) Such data would provide a basis for designating areas
as attainment or nonattainment for any PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the
standards promulgated in July 1997;
(3) The President of the United States directed the
Administrator in a memorandum dated July 16, 1997, to
complete the next periodic review of the particulate matter
national ambient air quality standards by July 2002 in order
to determine ``whether to revise or maintain the standards'';
(4) The Administrator has stated that three years of air
quality monitoring data for fine particle levels, measured as
PM2.5 and performed in accordance with any
applicable federal reference methods, is appropriate for
designating areas as attainment or nonattainment pursuant to
the July 1997 promulgated standards; and
(5) The Administrator has acknowledged that in drawing
boundaries for attainment and nonattainment areas for the
July 1997 ozone national air quality standards, Governors
would benefit from considering implementation guidance from
EPA on drawing area boundaries;
(b) The purposes of this title are--
(1) To ensure that three years of air quality monitoring
data regarding fine particle levels are gathered for use in
the determination of area attainment or nonattainment
designations respecting any PM2.5 national ambient
air quality standards;
(2) To ensure that the Governors have adequate time to
consider implementation guidance from EPA on drawing area
boundaries prior to submitting area designations respecting
the July 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards;
(3) To ensure that implementation of the July 1997
revisions of the ambient air quality standards are consistent
with the purposes of the President's Implementation
Memorandum dated July 16, 1997.

particulate matter monitoring program

Sec. 2. (a) Through grants under section 103 of the Clean
Air Act the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency shall use appropriated funds no later than fiscal 2000
to fund one hundred percent of the cost of the establishment,
purchase, operation and maintenance of a PM2.5
monitoring network necessary to implement the national
ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 under
section 109 of the Clean Air Act. This implementation shall
not result in a diversion or reprogramming of funds from
other Federal, State or local Clean Air Act activities. Any
funds previously diverted or reprogrammed from section 105
Clean Air Act grants for PM2.5 monitors must be
restored to State or local air programs in fiscal year 1999.
(b) EPA and the States shall ensure that the national
network (designated in section 2(a)) which consists of the
PM2.5 monitors necessary to implement the national
ambient air quality standards is established by December 31,
1999.
(c) The Governors shall be required to submit designations
for each area following promulgation of the July 1997
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard within
one year after receipt of three years of air quality
monitoring data performed in accordance with any applicable
federal reference methods for the relevant areas. Only data
from the monitoring network designated in section 2(a) and
other federal reference method PM2.5 monitors
shall be considered for such designations. In reviewing the
State Implementation Plans the Administrator shall

[[Page S1323]]

consider all relevant monitoring data regarding transport of
PM2.5.
(d) The Administrator shall promulgate designations of
nonattainment areas no later than one year after the initial
designations required under paragraph 2(c) are required to be
submitted. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the
Administrator shall promulgate such designations not later
than Dec. 31, 2005.
(e) The Administrator shall conduct a field study of the
ability of the PM2.5 Federal Reference Method to
differentiate those particles that are larger than 2.5
micrograms in diameter. This study shall be completed and
provided to Congress no later than two years from the date of
enactment of this legislation.

Ozone Designation Requirements

Sec. 3. (a) the Governors shall be required to submit
designations of nonattainment areas within two years
following the promulgation of the July 1997 ozone national
ambient air quality standards.
(b) The Administrator shall promulgate final designations
no later than one year after the designations required under
paragraph 3(a) are required to be submitted.

additional provisions

Sec. 4. Nothing in sections 1-3 above shall be construed by
the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency or any
court, State, or person to affect any pending litigation or
to be a ratification of the ozone or PM2.5
standards.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have had an amendment and actually
have had a bill to address a problem that many of us are concerned with
having to do with a change that was proposed by the Administrator of
the EPA in November 2 years ago. This made dramatic changes in the
standards for particulate matter and for ozone.
We held extensive hearings. As chairman of the Clean Air
Subcommittee, we had seven hearings on this bill. It has become very
controversial. The Administrator of the EPA has set the standards.
After having gone through the process of the hearings and the process
of the comment periods, it is now set. However, in the memorandum of
implementation by the President, we have a time guideline for the
implementation of these standards. Let me repeat that. The standards
are set in both particulate matter and in ozone but not yet
implemented. The implementation period provides for certain periods of
time for establishing a PM monitoring network for collecting data for
Governors to recommend areas of designation for the EPA to designate
new nonattainment areas, and then for the States to submit State
implementation plans. That would be true on both ozone and particulate
matter.
What we are attempting to do with this bill is to take these
guidelines to make sure that they are in order and that everyone has
ample time to carry out what has to be done in order to implement these
standards. That would require a period of time.
So what I have done with this amendment is take the memorandum of
implementation from President Clinton and put that down into periods of
time as he recommends, and we are adding that as an amendment.
Obviously, this is germane to this bill because if we are to find
ourselves out of attainment, it would dramatically affect the ability
of the States to be able to have their transportation funds.
So with the following three exceptions, this amendment only puts into
the bill the time guidelines that we have all agreed to. It has been
signed off on by the minority and the majority and the EPA.
The first one is an area that does not affect time lines. It has to
do with fully funding. This is a conscientious concern. However, the
States have talked to us through the Governors associations, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the counties, and the rest of them saying that
what they don't want to have is an unfunded mandate whereby they would
have all of these obligations to monitor the PM and go through all of
this and not have it funded. This portion of the amendment, section
(2)(a), requires that the EPA absorb all of these costs.
The next area is one that meets a problem that mostly concerns the
agricultural community throughout America; that is, their concern with
how they will be treated. Section 2(e) says that this study would take
place that would address the concerns of farmers who believe that they
will be targeted for PM 2.5. And we talked about PM 2.5. We are talking
about 2.5 micrograms as opposed to the current 10 and emissions larger
than 2.5.
This is their concern. Everyone has agreed that this is a legitimate
concern that the farmers of America have, and we are accommodating
them.
The last section that does not affect just the timeline is section 4
where it says:

Nothing in section 1-3 above shall be construed by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or any
court, State, or person to affect any pending legislation.

There is some pending legislation.
I would like to add that I had a conversation with Administrator
Browner, and we have had many nice conversations. While we have
occasionally disagreed philosophically on some things, I did agree with
her that if this amendment passes and survives the conference, passes
and then is signed into law, I have no intention of bringing up any
other legislation or amendments affecting the national ambient air
quality standards; that is, barring anything totally unforeseen. I
can't imagine what that would be.
Mr. President, my amendment today addresses the EPA's revised
Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As
you know, I have been a vocal critic of the EPA's revised Particulate
Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. My
subcommittee has held extensive hearings on both standards, and I am
convinced, based on the record developed in those hearings, that those
standards are not needed to protect the health of our citizens, or our
environment, and that the implementation of these standards will impose
huge costs on the country, that are completely unjustified. For these
reasons, I have sponsored legislation that would require EPA to
reconsider these standards, before they are implemented.
I rise today to pursue a narrower objective. The administration has
announced an implementation plan for both standards. However, a number
of concerns have been raised about EPA's ability to implement this plan
under the Clean Air Act. One key concern has been whether EPA can hold
off on designation areas as not meeting the new standards--i.e., as
nonattainment areas.
With regard to PM 2.5 (the new Particulate Matter standard), three
years of federal reference method monitoring data are necessary to
designate areas, and a monitoring network--funded by EPA, not the
states--needs to be put in place to generate these data.
With regard to the ozone standard, EPA needs to develop guidance on
nonattainment boundaries, before the designation process can even
begin. EPA says that this guidance will be available in 1999, but, the
states still must submit their recommended designations to EPA this
July unless something is done.
The amendment I have offered is designed to address these concerns by
giving the Agency clear authority to proceed with the schedule
announced by the President last July. I am offering it because I
believe it would be unacceptable for the Congress to allow a situation
to develop where uncertainty about EPA's legal authority could result
in confusion and chaos.
I caution, however, that this legislation does not affirm the
standards. Whether those standards are lawful, appropriate, and
necessary is still an open question that is being considered by the
Courts. We can't realistically expect this question to be answered in a
year or more. This legislation is designed to assure that the agency
has clear authority to proceed with its implementation schedule, while
the very important questions about the legitimacy of these standards
are still debated.
This legislation addresses only the timing of attainment designation
under the President's implementation plan for these standards. EPA
recently proposed to order the states to develop plans, that, among
other things, would require reductions in inter-state emissions that
might be contributing to exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard. A
number of legal and factual objections to this proposal have been
raised by states, industry, and others. Since this is only a proposal,
I have not addressed in this legislation EPA's authority under the Act
to require any reductions before state plans are developed after areas
have been designated.
I thank very much Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, and Administrator

[[Page S1324]]

Browner, as well as some of the staff: Chris Hessler, Jimmie Powell,
with whom I worked closely, Barbara Roberts, and Tom Sliter. They have
been very cooperative and very helpful in bringing this to the point
where we are today.
At this point I yield for questions.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which
has been offered by my colleague who is the chairman of the Clean Air
Subcommittee of the Environment Committee. He has identified some
important concerns about the implementation of the recently revised so-
called National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
This is a very complicated area. The Senator from Oklahoma has
invested a good deal of time and energy studying this and educating our
committee about it. His subcommittee, as he mentioned, held seven
hearings on the subject here in Washington and another in Oklahoma. He
and his staff led the sometimes difficult negotiations on this
amendment to, as he noted, a successful conclusion.
I want to applaud the Senator from Oklahoma for his efforts both on
this amendment and on the larger issue of the NAAQs rule. He has
invested a great deal of energy and time in studying this complicated
matter and educating the Environment and Public Works Committee about
it. His subcommittee held seven hearings on the issue here in
Washington, and another in Oklahoma. He and his staff led the sometimes
difficult negotiations on this amendment to a successful conclusion.
His efforts and patience have served us all well because the amendment
before us will improve the implementation of the NAAQs.
This amendment seeks to ensure that commitments made last year about
how the standards would be implemented are upheld. The Environmental
Protection Agency said it would cover 100 percent of the costs
associated with installing and operating the new monitors needed to
measure fine particulate matter. Having made the promise, the federal
government must ensure that it is kept. This amendment would do that.
The amendment would also require three years of data collection
before planning starts for additional pollution controls. The EPA has
decided that it needs three years of data to ensure that chronic
sources of particulate matter are accurately identified. Complete data
will enable states to develop appropriate control strategies. Reducing
PM 2.5 is important to the public health but we must be sure that new
controls are used where they are needed. Without sufficient monitoring
data, we will not be certain the right sources are targeted for
controls, and we may not achieve the improved air quality or the health
benefits that we are seeking.
Along the same lines, we need to be sure we can chemically
distinguish one type of particulate from another. That is the only way
State air officials will know if they need to reduce pollution from
wood stoves or power plants. This amendment requires a field study of
the monitors to ensure that they are serving this purpose effectively.
The EPA promised the States that they would have both the resources
and the information necessary to implement the NAAQs rule. Through this
amendment, the Senator from Oklahoma is attempting to enforce those
commitments.
All of the goals of this amendment are worthy and reasonable and I
urge everyone to support it.
Essentially what the amendment does is the following: There have to
be monitors set up to measure particulate matter and ozone levels and
other matter. The question is, Who is going to pay for these monitors?
Is it going to be the Federal Government? The Administrator indicated
it would be the Federal Government, but there seems to be some backing
off from that.
The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma says that the
Environmental Protection Agency would cover 100 percent of the costs of
installation. You have to install these things and operate them. You
have to go out and check these new monitors to measure the fine
particulate matter.
That is the first thing the Senator has accomplished in this
amendment. That is a very welcome provision because the State budgets
are having trouble keeping up with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
The other part of his amendment would codify the requirement under
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. That calls for 3 years of
data collection before there can be a designation of nonattainment for
this particular part of so-called particulate matter. So, the EPA has
decided that 3 years of data are necessary to ensure that chronic
sources of particulate matter are accurately identified. As I
understand the amendment of the Senator, it requires 3 years. Am I
correct?

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. So, this is a difficult area. The assurance that the
Senator from Oklahoma has put in, dealing with both the period and also
who is going to pay for these monitors, is a good one. We are glad to
accept it on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a happy day, because it was not
too long ago here that, after the EPA announced new standards for ozone
and small particulates, there was going to be a huge uproar in the
Senate and there would be a big battle over whether or not the EPA
should be allowed to go ahead with these new standards.
Frankly, however, as Senators have looked at this issue--and I take
my hat off to the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who has come
up with this amendment--the effect of this amendment is not to delay
those standards and not to in any way impede those standards, but
rather set up a procedure which helps, frankly, assure the process will
continue on a fair basis; namely, that the monitoring costs--and they
will be quite extensive; that is monitoring the air in various parts of
the country, particularly nonattainment areas--will be paid for by the
Environmental Protection Agency. That is not by States. The States will
be fully reimbursed for their monitoring costs. So that helps establish
a solid program because we know where the money is going to come from
and it will be fully paid for.
A second major change here, at least a clarification, is that States
will not be faced with new nonattainment designations under the Clean
Air Act for PM 2.5--that is the small particulates--without 3 years of
monitoring data. That at least makes sense, that we have 3 years of
monitoring data. In fact, the EPA-proposed standard was based on a 3-
year average anyway. So as a practical matter, this is a measure which
will help assure that the standards will be addressed fairly,
comprehensively, and also in a timely manner. So this version of this
amendment, unlike earlier versions that had been filed, does not delay
implementation of the new air quality standards.
This version also has no language in it which revokes the standards.
There was some concern that these standards might be revoked. That is
not in here. Also, there is no provision that proposes a moratorium on
EPA.
In short, the new standards will go forward as envisioned. I might
say to Senators, this is a long, involved process. It could take 10, 12
years before some of these standards actually ever go into effect, if
they ever do. If they do go into effect, they are at the behest of and
designation of States. That is, States, under what is called State
implementation plans, would designate what actions various entities,
whether they are powerplants or automobiles or what not, would have to
do in order to qualify. And that would take a long time.
So I finish where I began. This is a happy day. This is a resolution.
It is a compromise. And I think it is going to help people be more
assured, on a more solid, fair basis, that our air will be cleaner in
those parts of the country where it needs to be cleaned up. I think it
is a good amendment, and I thank the Senator very much for his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from
Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to extend the thanks of all of us to the
Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, because he was willing to
compromise. He talked with the Administrator of EPA, Ms. Browner,
several times. I did, too. He was willing to give. He did not demand it
only be his way. It was a successful compromise. I congratulate the
Senator.

[[Page S1325]]

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I further ask
unanimous consent that Senator Jeff Sessions be added as an original
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to briefly
inquire with my colleague how his amendment will affect areas of my
state.
It is my understanding that this amendment will not in any way
interfere with or delay efforts currently underway by EPA and various
states to address the issue of pollution transported across state
lines. Is that correct?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is correct. The amendment is simply designed to
provide greater certainty for states, small businesses and consumers
regarding control strategies for the new ozone and particulate matter
standards.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment codifies a time line for
the Administrator to promulgate final designations under the new ozone
and PM standards. Is it the Senator's intention that areas in violation
because they are heavily impacted by dirty air from other states should
be ``held harmless'' in the interim period or not be penalized with
more air-pollution controls by being ``bumped up'' to a higher
nonattainment status?
Mr. INHOFE. That is my intention. Should this not be the case, we
would have to revisit this issue legislatively.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.
The Senator's amendment will ensure that federal funding is available
to construct and operate a nationwide monitoring system for fine
particles, and it will allow future designation decisions to be based
on three complete years of monitoring data. The amendment would also
provide Governors with two years to consider regional transport issues
prior to submitting new ozone redesignations.
This amendment will not, as some opponents may contend, roll back or
delay the new standards. On the contrary, the amendment does not change
the new standards and adheres to the President's own time table for
achieving them. In fact, this amendment may actually strengthen the new
standards by establishing a legally certain schedule for putting them
into place. Moreover, this amendment is critically important because it
will make sure that future Clean Air Act designations will be based on
actual air quality data rather than guesswork and extrapolation. In
view of the anticipated costs associated with meeting the new
standards, we must take this very simple step.
Last summer, when the President announced new air quality standards
for soot and smog, he also promised that the Federal Government would
work closely with states and local communities to implement these
standards in a fair, flexible and cost-effective manner. For many
communities in Pennsylvania, the imposition of new standards has been a
very bitter pill to swallow, but the promised implementation plan has
offered a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. While the
President's pledge has been appreciated, it is my view that this
amendment is necessary in order to give states and communities
reassurance that the promised implementation plan will be followed.
Thank you, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
amendment, and I wish to thank my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe,
for his efforts in this regard. These new rules, which modify the
ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, would
severely impact West Virginia. Up to ten counties in my home state
might be thrown into nonattainment under these rules, and a large
number of industries might be adversely affected, including chemicals,
construction, steel production, glass manufacturing, coal-fired utility
power plants, pulp and paper mills, and commercial trucking.
On a national level, the impact of these rules is even greater, with
early estimates from the President's Council of Economic Advisors that
these rules might cost $60 billion annually. Many major urban areas
have not yet complied with the current ozone standard, and are not even
close to being able to do so. These urban areas have not even completed
their plans on how they will comply with the current standard. Basic
logic would dictate that these states should first finish these plans,
and enforce the current standard, before moving on to even more
ambitious proposals. Instead, these states must constantly revise their
air plans, even while never completing those plans. As I stated in an
earlier letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these
states are trapped in the clean air version of the perpetual motion
regulatory machine, where replanning becomes as important as actual
implementation and enforcement.
In the area of particulates, there is almost no national monitoring
data, and there is weak scientific and technical support for the rule.
The EPA and the environmental community refer to a small number of
studies that support the rule, but there is room for serious debate
about whether a clear connection between PM 2.5 and health-related
problems has been established.
The amendment before us is actually quite modest in its goals, and
unfortunately does not address many of these broader problems with this
air rule. The amendment codifies promises made by the Administration
with regard to the time schedule to implement the new rules, and also
codifies provisions for funding a nationwide network of monitoring
stations for particulate matter. The Administration's proposed time
schedule is not legally binding, and this amendment will ensure that
the EPA cannot later alter the terms of the implementation package that
it has offered to state governments.
Despite these modest goals, this amendment holds the EPA's feet to
the fire, and will ensure that promises made to the states will be
honored. I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator
Inhofe, and ensure that promises made to West Virginia are promises
kept by the EPA.
Mr. CHAFEE. We are prepared to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. If I might beg the indulgence of the chairman of the
committee, I understand the Senator from California, Senator Boxer,
might want to speak on this amendment. She is looking at it at the
moment. I suggest if procedurally we can do that, we ask consent this
be temporarily laid aside so Senator Reid can speak. He may have an
amendment here, too. I do not expect a problem, but I, in good faith,
must tell the Senator I am informed Senator Boxer would like to have
the opportunity to perhaps speak on this amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. That is her privilege.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Would it be a good idea to go
ahead, rather than set it aside, and recognize the Senator from Nevada?
It may be ready at that time.
Mr. BAUCUS. That's probably a better alternative, that we keep
talking on the amendment and Senator Reid can keep talking, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. I say to the two managers of the bill, I do have an
amendment. I understand it has been reviewed thoroughly over the last
several days by the staff and it is acceptable. If there is adequate
time, I would be happy to speak on the bill also now.
Mr. BAUCUS. I might suggest you speak on the bill and/or your
amendment. Once this amendment is disposed of, then we can vote on your
amendment. Either way.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I will send it to the
desk. Is there an amendment pending that needs to be set aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask consent the Senator speak on his amendment. The
Senator from Oklahoma--speak on your own amendment. We will dispose of
the Inhofe amendment, and then----
Mr. REID. If we set aside the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma
my statement on my amendment will only take a minute.

[[Page S1326]]

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator from Nevada yield? Is it the Senator's
intention to have an amendment on my amendment or speak on my
amendment?
Mr. REID. I want to speak on my amendment. Your amendment is
acceptable. I have nothing to say about your very fine amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment offered
by the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 1688 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To provide support for Federal, State, and local efforts to
carry out transportation planning for the Tahoe National Forest, the
Toiyabe National Forest, the Eldorado National Forest, and the areas
owned by States and local governments that surround Lake Tahoe and
protect the environment and serve transportation)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Bryan,
Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment
numbered 1688 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 253, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(3) Lake tahoe region.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) establish with the Federal land management agencies
that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe region (as
defined in the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Compact) a
transportation planning process for the region; and
``(ii) coordinate the transportation planning process with
the planning process required of State and local governments
under this section, section 135, and chapter 53 of title 49.
``(B) Interstate compact.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), notwithstanding
subsection (b), to carry out the transportation planning
process required by this section, the consent of Congress is
granted to the States of California and Nevada to designate a
metropolitan planning organization for the Lake Tahoe region,
by agreement between the Governors of the States of
California and Nevada and units of general purpose local
government that together represent at least 75 percent of the
affected population (including the central city or cities (as
defined by the Bureau of the Census)), or in accordance with
procedures established by applicable State or local law.
``(ii) Involvement of federal land management agencies.--

``(I) Representation.--The policy board of a metropolitan
planning organization designated under subparagraph (A) shall
include a representative of each Federal land management
agency that has jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe
region.
``(II) Funding.--In addition to funds made available to the
metropolitan planning organization under other provisions of
this title and under chapter 53 of title 49, not more than 1
percent of the funds allocated under section 202 may be used
to carry out the transportation planning process for the Lake
Tahoe region under this subparagraph.

``(C) Activities.--
``(i) Highway projects.--Highway projects included in
transportation plans developed under this paragraph--

``(I) shall be selected for funding in a manner that
facilitates the participation of the Federal land management
agencies that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe
region; and
``(II) may, in accordance with chapter 2, be funded using
funds allocated under section 202.

``(ii) Transit projects.--Transit projects included in
transportation plans developed under this paragraph may, in
accordance with chapter 53 of title 49, be funded using
amounts apportioned under that title for--

``(I) capital project funding, in order to accelerate
completion of the transit projects; and
``(II) operating assistance, in order to pay the operating
costs of the transit projects, including operating costs
associated with unique circumstances in the Lake Tahoe
region, such as seasonal fluctuations in passenger loadings,
adverse weather conditions, and increasing intermodal needs.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on my behalf and
that of Senators Bryan, Boxer and Feinstein. It has the support of the
State governments of both California and Nevada, and it is an amendment
that is very simple. It grants Metropolitan Planning Organization
status for the Lake Tahoe basin on the border between California and
Nevada.
Not only is Lake Tahoe the most beautiful place on the Earth, and it
has been deemed to be such since the time Mark Twain first looked at it
and said it was the ``fairest place on all the Earth,'' locals within
the basin, the Washoe Indian Tribe, and the State governments of Nevada
and California, have long recognized the unique status of Lake Tahoe.
But, in addition to its beauty, it is certainly one of the most fragile
environments anyplace in the world. For many years the competing
interests in the basin have found ways to work together to protect the
famed water quality of the lake. These partnerships have been developed
and are unique and have proved the notion that it is not necessary to
harm the economy to improve the environment.
Mr. President, last summer President Clinton convened a Summit. He
and Vice President Gore and five Cabinet officers came to Lake Tahoe
and spent 2 days. They addressed the related transportation, forest
health and water quality concerns that face the Basin. Transportation
was identified as one of the key areas where improvements in
infrastructure could also yield key environmental benefits. MPO status
recognizes the unique bi-State nature of the Tahoe basin and enhances
the ability of local residents to compete for transportation planning
funding.
I appreciate very much the consideration of both sides and would ask
that this amendment be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is satisfactory to this
side. It is my understanding--I have talked with the distinguished
ranking member--the amendment is acceptable to the minority side
likewise.
We are prepared to accept it, and I congratulate the Senator from
Nevada for his amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1688) to amendment No. 1676 was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the permission of the manager of the
bill--if the manager of the bill would rather I speak at a later time,
I will be happy to do that. I just wanted to speak on the bill if there
is nothing going on in here on the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Well, we are waiting for the Senator from California.
Mr. REID. As soon as she shows----
Mr. CHAFEE. We want to be sure she is going to show. The Senator from
Oklahoma has been very patient.
Mr. REID. Whenever you learn she is not going to come or she does
come, I will be happy, with a wave of the hand, to sit down.
Mr. CHAFEE. Why don't we say you go ahead for 10 minutes and let's
see what happens, with the understanding you will yield if she comes
over so she can say her piece.
Mr. REID. Or if for any other reason the manager of the bill wants to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor and very
strong supporter of S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. Both S. 1173 and the amendment adding an additional $26
billion to the bill passed unanimously out of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, a committee I have served on very proudly
for my years in the U.S. Senate.
I want to also say, and spread across the Record of this Senate, what
a tremendously fine job has been done by the chairman of this committee
and the ranking member of this committee to allow this bill to be where
it is today. It has been very hard work. Frankly, it would have been
nice if we had done it last year, but we didn't. The reason we are
where we are today is because of the work of the chairman of the full
committee and the work of the ranking member of the committee. The
States of Rhode Island and Montana have many reasons to be proud of the
two Senators who are managing this bill, but for no reason should they
be more proud of their Senators than the work they have done on this
bill.

[[Page S1327]]

Their committee work has been outstanding and is certainly something
that everybody in this country, not only the people from the States of
Rhode Island and Montana, should feel very good about, what is
happening on this floor.
Every person who is a Member of the U.S. Senate or the House of
Representatives has a stake in a national transportation system that is
second to none, one that meets the present and future needs of the
American people. This bill is not perfect, but it is a tremendously
strong bill. Moving people and goods quickly and efficiently throughout
the Nation is one of the most important things we can do to maintain a
strong economy. Far too much time and productivity is lost waiting in
traffic.
I give an example to all. People in southern California are connected
with the people of southern Nevada by I-15. I-15 is a tremendously
burdened road. The chairman of the committee came to Nevada and heard
testimony regarding the importance of this legislation. He heard
firsthand about the tremendous difficulty we have moving people to and
from southern Nevada and southern California.
Mr. President, it is no longer a question of having people come to
Las Vegas for purposes of tourism. The problem is that the road is
clogging interstate commerce. Vehicles, trucks moving produce, cannot
move on this road. It is too crowded. This is only an example of what
is happening in other parts of the country, although the problem of I-
15 is magnified because of how old it is and how much repair needs to
be done on it.
The original ISTEA legislation in 1991 was really the brain child of
the committee chair at that time, Senator Pat Moynihan from the State
of New York. He did very good work. He was visionary in this bill. It
changed the thrust of legislation dealing with surface transportation
that had been in effect since the Second World War. The legislation in
1991 was one of the most far-reaching and innovative pieces of
legislation ever produced by Congress. It laid out a road map for
transportation for the entire 21st century.
Rather than focusing upon the completion of the Interstate System,
ISTEA focused on connecting different modes of transportation to meet
the needs of the future. I enjoyed very much working on that
legislation as a Member of this committee, and I think it is some of
the most rewarding work that I have done since I have been a Member of
Congress.
With the exception of the Department of Defense authorization bill,
ISTEA is going to be the largest money bill that Congress will take up
this year. I also say, although I do not see him on the floor of the
Senate today, the subcommittee chair of the Transportation
Subcommittee, Senator John Warner, is a fine Senator.
I had the pleasure of serving with him when I was chairman of a
subcommittee and he was ranking member. Coincidentally, I was talking
with someone this morning who is a friend of Senator Warner. We talked
with some affection about the work that the Senator from Virginia does
generally, but especially in this committee and this subcommittee. I
commend and applaud the work of Senator Warner in this legislation.
We have to recognize, with the exception of the defense authorization
bill this year, ISTEA II is going to be the largest money bill Congress
will take up this year. As such, we have a tremendous responsibility to
get it right. Our economy is utterly dependent upon having a strong and
vital system of transportation. The creation of this intermodal system
will require all the innovative and creative thinking we can muster at
the Federal, State, regional and, yes, local levels. The State of
Nevada has a tremendous need for adequate highways, I say second to
none.
The State of Nevada is the most mountainous State in the Union,
except for the State of Alaska. We have 314 mountain ranges. We have 32
mountains that are over 11,000 feet high. We have tremendous growth in
the State of Nevada. Just to give you one illustration, in Clark
County, where Las Vegas is located, we need to build more than one
elementary school each month to keep up with the growth of students in
that area. So we have real problems.
Also, we have a State that is extremely large. Within its borders,
you could place the States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Delaware, and then still have
some left over. None of these States would touch one another, and there
would still be, as I have indicated, plenty of room to cut up Virginia
and use it to fill in the gaps joining all these States.
We have the additional problem that 87 percent of the State of Nevada
is owned by the Federal Government. We lead the Nation in Federal
ownership of land.
Nevada is also a bridge State. Hundreds of thousands of tons of goods
travel across Nevada through Utah, Arizona, and to and from California.
The CANAMEX route, one of the NAFTA corridors, traverses Nevada,
crossing over the top of the Hoover Dam bridge. When I say the Hoover
Dam bridge, that is really a misnomer. You cross right over Hoover Dam.
One of the greatest bottlenecks in the country is over Hoover Dam.
Traffic is lined up sometimes 5 to 10 miles trying to get over that
dam, and to think of the safety involved in not having adequate
transportation moving over that dam--it is unsafe. If there were an
accident of some kind, it would really do extreme damage to the water
supplies of southern California and the small areas below Hoover Dam.
We have to do something about that also.
In southern Nevada, thousands and thousands of new people move in
each month. In fact, almost 300 people a day move into Las Vegas alone.
So we have rapid growth. In 1970, there were fewer than 500,000
residents in the whole State of Nevada. By the year 2000, there will be
2 million. That is the growth that is taking place in Nevada.
In 1970, there were 2.2 billion vehicle miles traveled in Nevada. By
the year 2000, there will be over 12.5 billion vehicle miles traveled
in Nevada. Accommodation of such growth requires innovative thinking
and creative planning on the part of the State and local transportation
people.
Again, talking about the State of Nevada and all that growth, I have
indicated that it takes a lot of innovative thinking on the part of the
State to make sure that this all works out well. It also necessitates
imposing one of the stiffest State and local taxes in the Nation. We
have done that. We have done it willingly, because we recognize that if
we are going to meet the demands of the traffic problems in Nevada, we
cannot depend only on the Federal Government. We have done our share
and more.
In spite of that, Nevada needs a strong, effective Federal level of
effort, and that is what this bill does. As written, ISTEA II provides
a total of $173 billion for highways, highway safety, and other surface
transportation programs over the next 5 1/2 years.
I hope that as soon as this bill passes out of this Chamber, the
House of Representatives will take it up and get a bill back to us, so
we can go to conference and get this very important bill worked out so
that the departments of transportation in the 50 States know what is
ahead of them. They can do their bidding, they can let their contracts
prior to the bad weather happening, and go ahead and have a smooth
transition. We badly need to do that.
Overall, this bill represents a 40-percent increase in funding over
the original ISTEA bill some 6 years ago. With the completion of the
Interstate Highway System, it is vital we turn our attention to
developing multimodal transportation policies that will allow us to not
only maintain the excellent infrastructure we have, but also to move
forward to meet the demands of a new century.
In many ways, transportation issues of the future will be vastly more
difficult than the ones of yesterday. We live in an increasingly
diverse Nation, one that is no longer able to be solely dependent upon
the automobile. Even in a State as vast as Nevada, a bridge State,
where we desperately need more roads, we are also seriously looking at
the role monorails, magnetic levitation, and other high-speed rail
systems can play in our future transportation infrastructure.
I think one of the finest parts of this bill is something that
Senator Moynihan and I have worked on, and that is the part of the bill
that deals with magnetic levitation. Yesterday, Senator Moynihan
brought a box that contained a model of a maglev train to the

[[Page S1328]]

committee. In his statement, he made a plea for funding to design and
implement a magnetic levitation system. We need to do that.
Mr. President, our airports are clogged all over the country; our
highways are clogged all over the country. We need a way of moving
people for relatively short distances, up to 300 miles. The only way we
can do that rapidly and efficiently with the technology we now have is
with magnetic levitation.
In the 1960s, two scientists were stuck in traffic in New York. They
were MIT professors. They said, ``This is ridiculous that we are stuck
in traffic; let's do something about it.'' They went back to the
laboratories and invented magnetic levitation.
We, as a country, helped at the Federal level. We provided moneys for
research and development of this very unique mode of transportation. We
did it for a few years and dropped it. As soon as we dropped it,
Germany and Japan picked it up, and they are now way ahead of us with
this. It is too bad. We are the ones who should be in the forefront of
developing this mode of transportation. We need to get on board.
This bill contains an authorization of $1 billion for magnetic
levitation, and it actually provides funds, up to $30 million, for some
grants that will get this program going. This is very, very important,
and I express my appreciation to Senator Moynihan for his good work in
this area.
The money that is in the bill is a modest amount to move this project
forward, but it is an amount; it is more than we have ever done. There
is tremendous funding in the bill for all our individual States and
other areas, and I am happy we do have some for magnetic levitation. As
I indicated before, this bill is not perfect. But I am proud of the
progress we have made. The bill is good for all States. It is
tremendously important. It is a great product for the country.

The bill before us does a fine job of balancing many of our Nation's
competing priorities for transportation while giving the States the
flexibility they need to expend dollars in ways that make sense, given
the many regional differences we have in our country. I am supportive
of the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program and
the transportation enhancement program. The additional money and
increased flexibility are very positive developments. A national
transportation system that does not address environmental issues is one
that would not be living up to the expectations of the American people.
Other important programs, such as the intelligent transportation
system program, have both a positive impact on the environment and also
improve the efficiency of the highways. It is a dual track. I held, as
I indicated earlier, a field hearing in Las Vegas last year focused on
intelligent transportation systems, and the response was tremendous.
Local governments around Las Vegas and Reno have all begun to put
innovative high-tech transportation programs into place, and they are
very pleased with the initial results.
I am also supportive of a strong Federal Lands Highway Program. As a
Senator from a Western State--and remember, I said earlier 87 percent
of the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government--so as a
Senator from a Western State with a huge amount of public land, it is
impossible to overstate how important is the vital lifeline that these
road and highway funds provide to rural Americans.
I want to say a few words on safety. I support the efforts of my
friend, Senator McCain from Arizona, to develop a safety title for
inclusion in the overall authorization. I have a strong record on
safety, and in this legislation, I am very happy to support this title.
I want to spend a couple minutes discussing a safety issue that we
are not addressing in nearly enough detail in this reauthorization. As
the chairman and ranking member know, I have opposed triple-trailer
trucks. I believe they are both intimidating and unsafe. I have, since
offering my amendment on this issue--talking about moving forward on
this--I have received scores and scores of letters from all over the
country from people who are afraid of these trucks. I believe they are
incompatible with our obligation to provide a safe network of roads and
highways.
I do appreciate the input that I have received from the trucking
industry. But my fear of these triple-trailer trucks is not something
that I bear alone. I recognize that for a variety of reasons, though,
this is not a majority view. I have been in the Congress long enough, I
have served in legislative bodies long enough, to know when I have
enough votes. I do not have enough votes to have my amendment
adopted. I am not going to go forward with my amendment because, I
repeat, I do not have the votes to pass it.

Many of my colleagues argue there is just not enough accurate data
available to make an educated decision on this issue. Although I would
counter that mere common sense should dictate that triple-trailer
trucks do not belong on the same roads as a passenger car, I agree that
there is an appalling lack of data available on this subject.
Information given out by the trucking industry is unreliable and people
cannot underscore the validity of it because it is put out by the
trucking industry. What we need is the Department of Transportation to
do some work on this and get some real facts to determine the accident
rate and what these big trucks do to our roads and make a decision as
to: Is the length of the truck an important element or is it how much
these trucks weigh? We have to get more information on this. There is a
lack of data available on this subject.
Mr. President, in an attempt to remedy this deficiency, I have been
working with many, including the American Trucking Association, for
months to try to forge an agreement that would allow us to better study
the safety, environmental, and infrastructure impacts of all classes of
longer-combination vehicles. I have been doing this since last fall
when we first introduced this legislation.
Obviously, the American Trucking Association disagrees with me that
triples and others of these long vehicles are unsafe, but they
acknowledge that there is a public perception problem, and they have
been willing to work with me, which I appreciate. Unfortunately,
though, I found that there is little common ground between the safety
community and the American Trucking Association on what are the
acceptable bounds for a comprehensive study of size, weight, and other
trucking issues. No matter what model we came up with, various parties
certainly would not agree with what we should do. As a result, I am
unable to come up with a compromise on this subject right now. I would
ask the Secretary of Transportation to take a look at this issue. It is
a very important issue in the 16 States where we have these triple-
trailer trucks.
It is extremely frustrating to me and is a situation we, as a body,
should not allow to continue. There is an overwhelming lack of useful
data available to the U.S. Senate concerning longer-combination
vehicles. So I call upon the trucking industry, all of the safety
groups, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, to work it out, not
in a combative fashion, but to sit down and work together to come up
with valid information, which we do not have. It is not acceptable for
the mistrust that exists between these groups to continue to stand in
the way of a comprehensive, complete, and objective study of these
longer-combination vehicles. As I have indicated, I am not offering my
amendment today, but the Senate dialogue on the subject is just
beginning.
I want to also say, as I see in the Chamber today the ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee, the former majority and minority
leader of the Senate, that we are to the point on this bill where we
are as a result of the work done by the Senator from West Virginia.
Others of us joined in the original amendment, but I think everyone
recognizes it has been the tenacious nature of the Senator from West
Virginia to move forward on this legislation that has us at a point
where we are today with a bill with $26 billion more actual real
dollars in it than we would have had. We have a bill that we are going
to get out of this Senate within the next week or 10 days, and it is
all, I believe, as a result of the work done by the Senator from West
Virginia, which the Senator from Nevada very much appreciates.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

[[Page S1329]]

Mr. REID. Finally, although we are not yet discussing the transit
title, let me say a few words about public transportation.
Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the Nation. There is some
debate as to whether it is Las Vegas or the suburb of Henderson, where
I graduated from high school. But that area of the country is growing
extremely rapidly, as I have already explained. Yet before 1992, it
had, at best, a very weak mass transit system. In 1992, the Citizens
Area Transit--we call it CAT--owned by the Regional Transportation
Commission, and operated on a contract basis, began a fixed-route bus
system for Las Vegas.

The response has been tremendous. The Las Vegas community has truly
embraced CAT. In less than 5 years, ridership on CAT has grown from
14.9 million annual riders to over 35 million in 1996, a total
ridership growth of 134 percent, and going up each day.
The fare box recovery ratio is high. Most of the system's costs are
recovered without requiring a huge subsidy. The bus fleet is 100-
percent compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
So impressive has been CAT's ability to grow efficiently and
effectively, that the American Public Transit Association last year
awarded its Outstanding Achievement Award to CAT in the hardest-to-win
midsized system category. This is a tremendous feat for such a young
system. After all, Mr. President, this system does not rely on much in
the way of Federal funds. The dollars that the Federal Transit
Administration has provided has been very timely and useful to this bus
system. For that reason, I would oppose efforts to change transit
formulas to provide a minimum allocation to States without or with only
minimal transportation systems.
Let me conclude today, Mr. President, by saying that I join with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in saying that the fuels taxes
paid into the highway trust fund each year will support significantly
higher spending on transportation, and I am very happy that Congress is
now moving in that direction.
These are trust fund moneys. Every time you go buy a tank of gas at
the service station, the money that is collected there, a portion of
it, goes into the highway trust fund. Those moneys should be used for
that purpose, and that purpose only. To do otherwise would be a
violation of the enormous trust the American people have sent us to
Washington to uphold.
Our Nation's infrastructure represents the lifeline that fuels our
economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for the health of this
lifeline, all of us suffer. Whether it is unsafe and degraded roads or
pollution caused from overcongestion, all of us are affected. The price
is not only the inconvenience of traversing a dilapidated
infrastructure. Indeed, the real price is the increased costs all of us
pay for goods and services because of the burdens placed on a steady
flow of the stream of commerce. It is similar to a cholesterol buildup,
I guess, in the arteries, Mr. President. Eventually there is a steep
price to pay.
Again, I congratulate my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Baucus, Warner,
and Byrd, on a job well done. I look forward to working with all my
fellow Senators in passing this strong, vital 6-year bill as quickly as
possible, and then urging the House to move forward just as quickly so
we can get the bill to the President for his signature.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Nevada for his kind comments. He has been a very valuable member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, I guess, ever since he came
here to the Senate. We have worked closely together on a whole series
of matters. He has particularly been involved with the Endangered
Species Act, revisions of which I hope we can bring to a conclusion
pretty soon. So I thank the Senator for all his very constructive work
in our committee and on this legislation likewise.

amendment no. 1687

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from California has no
objection. So let us proceed with the approval on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1687.
The amendment (No. 1687) was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record letters of support from the National Governors Association,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and two other letters.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
Senator James Inhofe,
SROB, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the nation's Governors we
are writing in support of a requirement that EPA pay one
hundred percent of the cost of monitoring for the new fine
particle air quality standard. We also urge Congress to
codify the time frames in the President's directive for
implementing the new federal standards for ozone and
particulate matter.
As you realize, state face a heavy burden of performance
under the federal air quality standards. The costs of new
monitoring networks will be substantial. Moreover, while many
states regard the EPA's implementing timeframe as
unrealistic, we are concerned that we may be given even less
time than promised to monitor and submit data to the EPA. It
would be self-defeating if states were shortchanged on the
resources for monitoring and the time allowed for
implementation of the new air quality standards. If states
were not provided with adequate time and resources to carry
out their responsibilities, the underlying purpose and
objective of the federal requirements might not be realized.
For that reason, it is important to codify the President's
schedule for implementing the new air quality standards, and
to ensure that EPA pays for all costs associated with the new
monitoring requirements.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
us or Mr. Tom Curtis of NGA at 624-5389.
Sincerely,
George V. Voinovich,
Chairman.
Tom Carper,
Vice Chairman.
____

NFIB,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the 600,000 small
business members of the National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB), I am writing to urge you to support the
Inhofe Amendment to the Senate Highway bill (ISTEA).
Members of the Administration have stated that a nationwide
monitoring system for PM2.5 is necessary to classify
nonattainment areas under the new clean air standards. As
states seek ways to comply with the new standards, it is
critical that these decisions be based on sound data provided
by this type of monitoring network.
By ensuring the construction and operation of a new
nationwide PM2.5 monitoring system, the Inhofe Amendment
provides a framework of reliable data and sound science to
assist states with control strategies.
In a recent NFIB survey, a strong majority of small
business owners favored requiring agencies to use sound
science and valid evidence before issuing new rules.
The new stringent standards for ozone and particulate
matter will undoubtedly result in expanded emissions controls
on small businesses in areas of the country that have not
been subject to prior regulation. Designation of
nonattainment areas will bear heavily on those least able to
shoulder the burden--small businesses. It is imperative that
designations for the new standards be supported by sound,
accurate data.
Thank you for your consideration of our request and your
support for small business.

Dan Danner,

Vice President,
Federal Government Relations.
____

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
To Members of the United States Senate:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges your support for the
amendment to be offered by Senator Inhofe to S. 1173, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation, representing more than three million businesses
and organizations of every size, sector, and region.
From an economic standpoint, immediate implementation of
the new standards would triple the number of communities out
of compliance, at a time when continuing improvements are
being made to the nation's air quality. The amendment will
provide states, businesses and consumers greater certainty
that control strategies for attaining compliance with both
the new ozone and fine

[[Page S1330]]

particulate matter standards are based on reliable data. The
amendment will provide the necessary funding to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for establishing a
nationwide monitoring network for PM2.5 and allows
for the collection of three full years of monitoring data
before EPA decides which areas of the country do not meet the
new standard. The amendment is consistent with the timelines
set froth in President Clinton's Memorandum on Implementation
of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone and PM2.5.
Accordingly, we urge your support for the Inhofe amendment
to ensure that the new NAAQS are based on the best data
possible. The U.S. Chamber will consider including the vote
on this amendment to S. 1173 in its annual How They Voted
ratings.
Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President,
Government Affairs.
____

American Legislative

Exchange Council,

Washington, DC, March 2, 1998.
Senator James Inhofe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: It has come to my attention that you
are considering an amendment to the Senate Highway bill,
known as ISTEA, dealing with the Environmental Protection
Agency's revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
particulate matter. I commend you on addressing this
important issue.
ALEC's members comprise over 3,000 state legislators in all
fifty states. These new standards will seriously impact our
state economies and divert scarce funds from other health and
environment priorities. Thus, it is crucial that these
standards not be imposed prematurely.
ALEC has adopted the Resolution on Ozone and particulate
Matter NAAQS Revisions, (enclosed), a model resolution
opposing the rapid implementation of these changes. In the
resolution, ALEC notes that little monitoring information has
been developed as to the beneficial health effects of new
standards. ALEC believes more study is needed to ascertain if
a casual link exists between particles of 2.5 microns and
possible adverse health effects. Also, ALEC supports further
study to determine the actual benefits and costs involved.
ALEC's model legislation has been considered by many state
legislatures, and has already passed in seven states. I hope
this information is helpful as you continue your
deliberations on this issue. If you have any questions, I
encourage you to call Scott Spendlove, Acting Director of
ALEC's Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
Task Force, at (202) 466-3800.
Sincerely.
Duane Parde,
Executive Director.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd
be added as a cosponsor to the Inhofe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Ms. Moseley-Braun pertaining to the introduction of
S. 1705 are located in today's Record under ``Introduction of Bills and
Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, 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. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I also would like to thank the Presiding
Officer. This is actually my time to be in the Chair, and I appreciate
his giving me the opportunity to speak on the ISTEA legislation before
us. I will try to be brief in light of his willingness to stay a little
extra today.
I just thought I would take a few minutes to review as I see it the
progress that has been made really going all the way back to last year
in the effort to try to address the problems of infrastructure and
transportation in our country. Let me do that though, first, from my
perspective as a Senator from the State of Michigan.
For quite a long time--in fact, longer than anybody around seems to
be able to remember--our State has been one of the States which was
referred to as a donor State. That means that when gas tax moneys are
sent to Washington, more moneys get sent from Michigan than ever come
back in the form of support for the highway system. We understand and I
think have shown over the years a great deal of patience with the
formulas that have been used and the return on investment that has
taken place.
We understood, for example, when the Interstate Highway System was
being built that a lot of States needed to have additional dollars
beyond that which they could generate from their own gas tax revenues
in order to build the system so that we could transport Michigan cars
to the South or to the West and to the east coast, or Michigan
agriculture products and take advantage of receiving in exchange the
goods and services that other States were exporting. However, because
we are sending more dollars to Washington than we have received back,
it has meant that our State has not been able to do all that we would
like to in order to prepare our own infrastructure for the 21st
century.
We are especially beset by specific problems in Michigan. One is the
fact that the weather in our State tends to be quite a bit colder than
the average for the entire country. Particularly in the northern parts
of Michigan we encounter winters that are very severe. And that has an
effect on the road system.
We also, of course, confront problems that relate to the age of our
system. The Interstate System in our State of Michigan on average is
approximately 7 years older than the national average, which means that
some of our roads are more in need of service and repair than might be
the case in other parts of the country.
For this variety of reasons, it has been my view from the beginning
of the discussion of transportation legislation, which really was
initiated last year, that it is indispensable that Michigan receive
more money back, more dollars back, than we have been receiving in
previous years. To that end, our State legislature and our Governor
addressed this issue very clearly in 1997. The Governor came forth with
a very bold plan aimed at trying to provide adequate revenues and
resources to put Michigan's roads on a path to being in good shape for
the next century. Half of the plan essentially was a plan that
basically relied on Michigan to assume a greater responsibility.
So the State legislature and the Governor signed into law legislation
which increased our States' gas tax by a little over 4 cents to
generate approximately $200 million more per year to be available for
our State department of transportation. The Governor also charged all
of us who are Federal legislators with the job of bringing back more
dollars to Michigan as part of the reauthorization of the ISTEA
legislation. The target he set for us was $200 million as well, and it
was his view that, if the State could increase by $200 million what it
invested in roads and if the Federal Government's share could be
increased by $200 million, that $400 million amount would give Michigan
an excellent chance to address its repair needs, new roads needs, and a
variety of other transportation needs.
We have been working on this, obviously, now for quite a long time. I
think the progress to date has been good. The strategy that I have
taken or tried to work on here as a Member of the Senate has really
been a three-part strategy. Earlier this week, on Monday, we learned
that the second of the three parts had been successfully completed. The
first part was successfully completed in 1997, and we will soon work on
the balance. But let me talk about that strategy briefly and why, at
least from Michigan's point of view, things are much more positive
today than they were just a few days ago.
The first part of the strategy was simple. It was to shift into the
national highway transportation trust fund all the gas tax revenues
being sent to Washington from Michigan and other States. As you know,
in 1993, when we increased the Federal gas taxes by 4.3 cents, it was
the first time those dollars didn't go into the highway trust fund;
they went into the general fund. For a lot of us that didn't make
sense. Several of us tried to have that 4.3 cents repealed. We didn't
have enough

[[Page S1331]]

votes to get that job done. But what we did have was support this past
year during the deliberations on the tax bill in the summer of 1997 to
shift those tax dollars from the general fund to the transportation
fund, to make those dollars now available, if we authorized it, to be
spent on transportation. That was step one. It was a big victory for
donor States.

Step two took place earlier this week. After a lengthy behind-the-
scenes and public set of discussions and debates and negotiations, the
decision was made to spend a considerably greater amount of money on
transportation over the pendency of the ISTEA legislation than had been
expected to be spent when the legislation was first brought to the
Senate last year. Essentially, that amount will be approximately $25
billion additional over this timeframe. This is good news. It means
that the 4.3 cents we are transferring into to the trust fund will not
be allowed to increase the trust fund surplus but instead be available
to be spent on transportation so the donor States will have the
opportunity to see more of their gas tax moneys coming back.
It has been estimated that the combination of the underlying
legislation which was introduced here and the new dollars that are
going to be made available will for Michigan put us at least at the
$200 million mark and perhaps considerably beyond that. That, of
course, is the final step in the process.
What I wanted to do in my brief remarks today was to thank the
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the ranking
member and others who have been here working and will continue, I am
sure, for the next several days to be working for the progress that has
been made; to also thank those who were involved in these budget
discussions, particularly Senator Domenici, with whom I had numerous
meetings and discussions on this over the course of the last several
months, for his willingness to work on the new budget resolution in
such a way as to accommodate the additional spending on transportation.
I think we are making progress in the right direction.
The final step, obviously, is to determine how the new dollars and
all the money will be allocated. As a donor State, I have made it very
clear to the ranking member, to the chairman, and others that we in
Michigan would like to see donor States get as much equity as possible.
We recognize in this Chamber that we are not the majority of States. We
also recognize that there are unique needs in various regions of the
country, which we will try to address.
For my part, I want to be as helpful to the process as possible, and
at the same time I want to make it clear that as a Senator from
Michigan I am going to do everything I can to try to make sure that our
voice is heard and that we address to the degree we possibly can in
this Chamber the need for States that are donor States to get their
fair share. I hope we can finish this process in a way, as I said, that
allows us to not only hit but exceed the $200 million per year increase
that the Governor has set for us. I am more definitely on course for
doing that, and I appreciate the progress that has taken place so far.
I look forward to working with everybody. I will keep my constituents
apprised as further developments occur. But to those from Michigan who
are tuned in or who will be following this debate, I do want to make it
clear that we have succeeded, first, in shifting the gas tax revenues
into the trust fund; second, we have now succeeded in making sure that
those revenues coming into the trust fund will be spent. When you add
those together you definitely see Michigan on the road to receiving a
much greater number of dollars back from Washington than has been the
case. That is the kind of direction I hope we can continue right
through to the end of this legislation both here in the Senate and
ultimately when we work with the House to finish this up later this
year.
Mr. President, thank you.
I yield the floor.
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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment, which is the Chafee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have
been agreed to by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 1690 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To modify State infrastructure bank matching requirements)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf
of Senator Murkowski and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1690 to amendment
No. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 191, line 12, strike the semicolon at the end and
insert ``, except that if the State has a higher Federal
share payable under section 120(b) of title 23, United States
Code, the State shall be required to contribute only an
amount commensurate with the higher Federal share;''.

Mr. CHAFEE. This amendment by the junior Senator from Alaska is in
connection with State infrastructure banks. This amendment restores the
so-called sliding scale matching rate for States having large amounts
of federally owned land. Under the current State Infrastructure Bank
Pilot Program, such States may provide a smaller non-Federal match for
Federal contributions of capitalizing grants.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1690) was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1691 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To include as a goal of the innovative bridge research and
construction program the development of new nondestructive bridge
evaluation technologies and techniques)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the second amendment which I have is by
the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. I send it to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr.
Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1691 to amendment
No. 1676.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 371, line 6, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 371, line 10, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 371, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(6) the development of new nondestructive bridge
evaluation technologies and techniques.''

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, what this amendment does is deal with
innovative bridge research and construction. There is such a program.
This would include the development of nondestructive bridge evaluation
technologies and techniques. This is an important part of bridge safety
research.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1691) was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S1332]]

Amendment No. 1692 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To refine the criteria of selection for Federal assistance
for Trade Corridor and Border Infrastructure, Safety, and Congestion
Relief projects)

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of Senator Moynihan, I send an amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Moynihan,
proposes an amendment numbered 1692 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 98, line 7, amend subparagraph 1116(d)(2)(A) by
striking ``of commercial vehicle traffic'' each place it
appears and substituting ``and value of commercial traffic''.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment, as I mentioned, I am offering on behalf
of Senator Moynihan from New York. It clarifies that the Secretary
shall consider the value of commodities traveling through a State in
addition to the volume of the commodities when selecting proposals in
the border infrastructure and trade corridor program.
We have examined this amendment. I think it has also been cleared by
the other side. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1692) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1693 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To clarify the planning provisions of the bill)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senators Moseley-Braun and Durbin, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Ms. Moseley-
Braun, for herself and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment
numbered 1693 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 249, strike lines 5 through 11 and insert the
following:
``(2) Redesignation.--
``(A) Procedures.--A metropolitan planning organization may
be redesignated by agreement between the Governor and units
of general purpose local government that together represent
at least 75 percent of the affected population (including the
central city or cities as defined by the Bureau of the
Census) as appropriate to carry out this section.
``(B) Certain requests to redesignate.--A metropolitan
planning organization shall be redesignated upon request of a
unit or units of general purpose local government
representing at last 25 percent of the affected population
(including the central city or cities as defined by the
Bureau of the Census) in any urbanized area--
``(I) whose population is more than 5,000,000 but less than
10,000,000, or
``(ii) which is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone or
carbon monoxide as defined under the Clean Air Act.

Such redesignation shall be accomplished using procedures
established by subparagraph (A).

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of Senator Moseley-Braun, this is an amendment
to, frankly, correct an error that was made in the drafting of the
Environment and Public Works Committee bill before us today. The effect
of this amendment, therefore, would be to return to current law.
When the committee drafted the bill before us, that is ISTEA II, we
did not make any major changes to the current ISTEA planning
provisions. The language the Senator from Illinois is reinserting
should not have been deleted from the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1693) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1694 To Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for research into the interactions between
information technology and future travel demand)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have another amendment. This is on
behalf of Senator Barbara Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mrs. Boxer,
proposes an amendment numbered 1694 to amendment No. 1676.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 345, line 6, strike ``and''.
On page 345, line 9, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 345, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(H) research on telecommuting, research on the linkages
between transportation, information technology, and community
development, and research on the impacts of technological
change and economic restructuring on travel demand.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment on behalf of the Senator from California,
Mrs. Boxer would expand the current research programs to include how
telecommuting and other technological and economic changes can affect
travel. I believe this is a good amendment and will help fill the gap
in our research programs. California certainly is a State with
telecommuting and other technologies, and travel, and I urge the
adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1694) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are working to try to get another
amendment up.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think perhaps this might be a time when
we might do the best we could to alert our colleagues as to what is
taking place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. The major amendment we have been on since 10:30 this
morning, what you might call the so-called Chafee amendment, has been
tied up with some difficulties. We have not been able to move to a vote
on that. We have set it aside to take up other matters. At this time, I
would like very much if we could take up the Dorgan amendment, if that
is possible. If that is not possible, and that will take an hour, we
would soon be able to alert people whether we will be able to do that
or not.
Absent that, and even in addition to that, there would be an
amendment of about a half an hour by the junior Senator from New
Mexico, Senator Bingaman. If the Dorgan amendment is not available to
take up, then it would be my suggestion we go directly to the Bingaman
amendment, which would take a half hour.
So it is possible that we would have some votes--a vote at somewhere
around 6 o'clock. As you can note from my statement here, there are
some ``ifs'' involved in all this. I am doing the best I can to keep
our fellow Senators alerted to what the situation is.
Mr. BAUCUS. We are making every effort to locate both those Senators
and we are urging them to come to the floor as quickly as possible. I
am unable to report at this time whether they will be able to come to
the floor, but we will certainly try.
Mr. CHAFEE. I say further, what we would like to do is to dispose of
the underlying amendment, that is the amendment before us, the so-
called Chafee amendment. If we cannot do it tonight--and I see problems
with that--certainly do it the first thing in the morning. Then we
would go to the McConnell amendment on disadvantaged business
enterprises. He has indicated he would be ready. Actually, I told him
we were going to do that this afternoon, so my predictions are not
totally accurate on what we are taking up and what we might take up.

[[Page S1333]]

But we are doing the best we can. That is a major amendment and will
take some time. We would certainly like to get to that amendment as
soon as we can. The key thing is to dispose of the so-called Chafee
amendment as soon as we can.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I fully concur with the agenda laid out by
the distinguished chairman, and hope we accomplish it. Meanwhile, I ask
unanimous consent Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as a cosponsor
of the underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am authorized to announce on behalf of
the majority leader there will be no more votes this evening. We will
announce shortly the schedule for tomorrow, what time we will be coming
in, what votes will be coming up and when they will be coming up. We
will be ready to announce that very, very shortly.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as a cosponsor
to the Chafee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, we are waiting for the final
arrangements for the schedule for early tomorrow, and pending that, 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. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, before we start, I once again say to
anybody who hasn't yet got the message, I have been authorized by the
majority leader to announce that there will be no further rollcall
votes this evening.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on Thursday,
immediately following the resumption of the highway bill, Senator
Bingaman be recognized in order to offer an amendment regarding liquor
drive-throughs. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 30
minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on that
amendment. I further ask consent that immediately following that
debate, the amendment be set aside and Senator Dorgan be recognized to
offer an amendment regarding open containers. I ask consent that there
be 60 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on that
amendment. Finally, I ask consent that at the expiration of that time,
at approximately 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Senate proceed to a vote
on or in relation, first, to the Dorgan amendment, to be followed by a
vote on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment. I also ask unanimous
consent that no amendments be in order to the above-mentioned
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________