[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 21 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1386-S1394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Now the Bingaman 
amendments, if we could deal with those quickly?


  Amendments Nos. 1699, 1700 and 1701, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk and 
ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), for himself and 
     Mr. Domenici, proposes amendments numbered 1699, 1700 and 
     1701, en bloc, to amendment No. 1676.

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

                amendment no. 1699 to amendment no. 1676

(Purpose: To clarify that Federal laboratories are eligible to receive 
  grants or to enter into contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 
                             transactions)

       On page 310, strike lines 9 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5211. Transactional authority

       ``To further the objectives of this chapter, the Secretary 
     may make grants to, and enter into contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, and other transactions with--
       ``(1) any person or any agency or instrumentality of the 
     United States;
       ``(2) any unit of State or local government;
       ``(3) any educational institution;
       ``(4) any Federal laboratory; and
       ``(5) any other entity.
                                                                    ____



                amendment no. 1700 to amendment no. 1676

    (Purpose: To clarify that information on transportation-related 
 research and development activities at Federal laboratories shall be 
 included in the general exchange of information being promoted by the 
                      Secretary of Transportation)

       On page 312, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     page 313, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(B) to promote the exchange of information on 
     transportation-related research and development activities 
     among the operating elements of the Department, other Federal 
     departments and agencies, Federal laboratories, State and 
     local governments, colleges and universities, industry, and 
     other private and public sector organizations engaged in the 
     activities;''.
                                                                    ____



                amendment no. 1701 to amendment no. 1676

  (Purpose: To clarify that innovative research performed by Federal 
  laboratories shall be identified and applied to the intermodal and 
multimodal transportation research, development, and deployments needs 
   of the Department and the transportation enterprise of the United 
                                States)

       On page 317, strike lines 1 through 6, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) identify and apply innovative research performed by 
     the Federal Government, Federal laboratories, academia, and 
     the private sector to the intermodal and multimodal 
     transportation research, development, and deployment needs of 
     the Department and the transportation enterprise of the 
     United States;''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I offer these on behalf of myself and 
Senator Domenici. They are very simple, conforming amendments to make 
it clear that the research activities that the Department of 
Transportation is engaged in are ones where they can call upon all of 
the scientific capability in our country, our Federal laboratories as 
well as our educational institutions, to get that research done. I do 
not think there is any opposition. I appreciate the chairman's allowing 
me to offer them at this time, and I urge Senators to support them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. These amendments are acceptable on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We have also reviewed the amendments and find them 
acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1699, 1700 and 1701) were agreed to en bloc.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1697

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dorgan 
amendment, amendment No. 1697.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dorgan 
amendment, amendment No. 1697. 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.
  The result was announced, yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns

[[Page S1387]]


     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1697) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The pending business before the 
Senate is the Bingaman amendment, as modified.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Vote On Amendment No. 1696, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 1696, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1696), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.


                Amendment No. 1684 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1684, which is the Chafee amendment, the financial amendment, 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 want to stress that it will be part of the bill. It can be amended. 
People can bring up their amendments to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I just want to take a few minutes here, 
and I won't object in a few minutes to that request, but I think some 
consideration has to be given to some aspects of the highway and mass 
transportation problem. It has been very difficult for some of us to 
deal with. Neither my colleague nor I serve on any of the committees 
dealing with this subject. I do call attention to the fact that I will 
be chairing the committee that will deal with it later.
  I am a little disturbed about what is happening in terms of small 
States--in particular, my State. I brought for Members to look at a 
comparison of my State and the whole United States and the delineation 
of the highways that exist in my State now. Those little gold dots are 
the villages and communities in my State that are not served by a 
highway or road yet. We have been a State now for 40 years and what do 
we find? If you look at the southeastern part, it looks like a 
panhandle on the right-hand side of this chart. That is the area of the 
marine highway system. We now are told we can't build any roads through 
the Forest Service land, and that is all Forest Service land down there 
except for a few communities and small areas of Native lands.
  We are not considered a part of the mass transportation system 
although we haul about 2 million of your constituents per year through 
that area on our ferries. When we built those ferries 30 years ago, the 
price of them was a lot less than it is now. Today, the cheapest boats 
that you can buy of this type--they have to be ocean-going ferries--are 
built overseas, except we can't buy those because the Jones Act says we 
can't use foreign-built vessels from port to port in the United States. 
So, we can't use the land to build roads, we have to build our own 
ferries, and now we have to pay five times as much for those ferries 
than if we could buy them overseas. Now, it is mass transportation but 
this bill doesn't recognize ferries of this size as being any part of 
mass transportation.
  I have some concerns that I have mentioned to my great friend from 
West Virginia about where the money is coming from when we do get to 
the process of financing that. I know he has some comments. I hope he 
won't get into that right now. We will work that out, I'm sure. But I 
want to point out to the Senate that we are going to have to work out a 
lot of things to finance this bill. This Senator wants to be a little 
happier with this bill. Right now I'm unhappy with the bill.
  Take, for instance, the border money that is in this bill. We have 
analyzed that Border States Road Program. Our State at the present time 
has 1,538 miles of border with our neighbor, 20 percent of the total 
border of the United States, and we figure we are not even included in 
this. If you want to know why, it is because, for instance, money is 
made available for contract authority to grant States to improve 
international gateways, but, by definition, the gateways are groupings 
of border stations. Well, if you go along our border, you will find one 
border station; there is no grouping.
  We have $18 million in this amendment for States for multistate 
corridor analysis. Well, we don't share the border with any other 
State, so obviously we are not involved in that allocation of money 
either.
  Then there is $750 million authorized to be awarded by the Secretary, 
based upon commercial traffic volume, comparison of other traffic 
volume. Our State has a volume in just 4 months of the year. We can't 
compare with anyone for 12 months of the year in terms of traffic 
volume.
  Mr. President, I don't have any objection to this; we are increasing 
the amount of money in a substantial way. As we do so, it seems that 
people are forgetting there are some places that don't have roads yet. 
In this bill, the whole philosophy here is, how do you improve existing 
roads or how do you really find a way to handle more traffic on the 
existing corridors that serve our country? I have no problem about 
that, but what is it going to do for a State like mine? Those roads 
that we need--we need to connect some of the villages to share schools, 
so we can share all of the services available from the State, local, 
and Federal Government. We are told now we can't go through parks, 
wildlife refuges, and other lands that are owned by the Federal 
Government. So in order to build them, we have to build longer roads to 
connect them.
  I argued last year about RS 2477, and we lost that battle. We cannot 
use the original rights-of-way. Along the Kuskokwim and Yukon, in order 
to build the roads, instead of using the rights-of-way that 
traditionally have been used the last 100 years, we have to go far 
inland and build the roads back and then come back to the river again. 
You can't follow the traditional roads because RS 2477 rights-of-way 
are no

[[Page S1388]]

longer valid. Do we have any recognition for the increased costs of 
building roads where Federal policy prohibits us from using Federal 
lands in Alaska that would be available in any other State, 
particularly any other Western State? No, we don't have any.

  We do believe we have to have some analysis on a national basis. 
Other States use ferries. I went over with my good friend from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye, and traveled on one of their brand-new ferries. It was 
a wonderful experience. I urge every Member of the Senate to do it. 
They have some ferries that are based on a new concept of suspension, 
and we were traveling 35 knots in a 6- to 7-foot sea. That is really 
very good. But those increased island ferries won't do any good for us. 
We have to comply with the Federal and international laws concerning 
safety of life at sea. We have to build enormous vessels in order to 
cross the Gulf of Alaska.
  Now, again, the concept of ferries and of the marine highway system, 
of recognizing that my State is not going to build roads across land, 
it will use ferries and it will use the marine highway system for our 
connections, has to be thought about in terms of this bill. So far, 
I've not been able to get that consideration. I want to see what we can 
do about dealing with that.
  The marine highway system, by the way, several Congresses ago--and I 
think my good friend from West Virginia will remember this--we made it 
part of the National Highway System. We thought that was a great 
advantage. But the money is in the interstate highway system and in the 
mass transportation system in this bill. So that is not going to do us 
much good for our marine highway system. That is not where the money is 
being increased.
  I also call the attention to the Senate of the fact that some of 
these ferry laws--there is a provision of existing law that deals with 
the requirements for crew, the requirements for other things that apply 
to the offshore States--in Alaska and Hawaii are burdensome and 
increase the cost of ferries. I have talked to the Senator from New 
York about trying to get some understanding of that.
  We also have a problem about the Indian reservation roads, the 
parkway and park roads, the National Wildlife System roads. All of 
those are covered by this bill. However, we have 70 percent of the 
parklands, we have 60 percent of the wildlife refuge lands, we have 50 
percent of the Federal lands, and we are getting 4 percent of the money 
that is involved in those. Do you know why? We are prohibited from 
building roads through those systems, so we have to build roads around 
the systems, but we don't get any consideration of that cost as we try 
to face the cost of building a highway system.
  I remember sitting in the gallery once right after we became a State, 
and one of my predecessors, Senator Gruening, was here on the floor 
speaking about roads in Alaska. That was 1959. I have to tell the 
Members of the Senate, the map he used was this map. We have not been 
able to build roads in Alaska because of the obstinate position--this 
is not partisan, it is not this administration--of the Federal 
Government. We have not been able to get access to build roads to 
connect our villages, our communities. We have depended until this time 
on air transportation to even ship bricks and hay.
  Now the Postal Service, very wisely, is saying, ``Look, the 
ratepayers pay the subsidy for Alaska transportation and we are not 
going to do it anymore.'' Think of that now. Here is another county, as 
my grandmother used to say; we are hearing from someone else and they 
are saying, we are not going to continue to subsidize the 
transportation of goods in Alaska. We should do the same thing, they 
say, as everyone else--ship it by road. I remember one of them 
suggested we ought to be able to ship it somehow by Kodiak, by road. It 
would be an awful long bridge. Anyone that wants to, I would like them 
to ride that ferry. We call it the Dramamine Express.
  When you talk about my State and the way we function under this bill, 
it's unfortunate. Maybe we should shift our committee assignments just 
before the highway bill passes so we can be heard in committees. I am 
becoming aware of the fact that every 5 years I come here to the floor 
and I complain. This year, I am going to do more than complain. This 
year, I am going to make some promises. I am not going to insist on 
carrying out the functions of this bill unless it becomes fairer.
  I understand that donor States want back 91 cents out of every dollar 
their people pay into the road system. We wish we had more roads so we 
can pay more into the system. We can't increase that payment into the 
system until we can build some of these roads. Currently, we are using 
air-cushioned vehicles in some parts of Alaska to deliver mail. Good 
idea, right? We are getting no assistance whatsoever in any way to 
prepare the rights of way for air-cushioned vehicles. It would be a lot 
cheaper than running trucks over that land and cause a lot less 
environmental damage than running trucks over the land. But guess what. 
Rights of way for clearance for air-cushioned vehicles is not covered 
by this bill.
  Now, Mr. President, it is not easy for us to come and really 
represent a State that is so far away. That is why I have developed 
such a fondness for my friends from Hawaii, because they go almost as 
far to get home as my colleague Senator Murkowski and I do. What you 
don't realize is that, after we get home, we travel farther in our 
State to get from community to community than many of you travel to get 
home. We want to have some ability to come into the next century with a 
basic highway system that will at least meet the needs of some of the 
rural areas in terms of massing them together, connecting them 
together, so they can get the advantage of scale in dealing with their 
problems. That is particularly true of our problem now with regard to 
schools and villages and communities that are isolated through that 
vast area we call ``the bush.''
  I could go on a little longer. We are going to go ahead with this 
bill, and I hope some Members who are working on it will think a little 
bit about what we are doing. As I said, we have the longest 
international border in the whole Nation. Under the trade corridor and 
border-crossing program, we qualify for little or none of the $775 
million that deals with border-crossing problems. At least we should be 
able to deal with these increases. Again, the donor States problem--we 
have faced that problem. My good friend from West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd, has worked out a way of dealing with that in terms of increasing 
money so that there isn't any damage to the existing allocation.
  I congratulate him, Senators Gramm, Chafee, Baucus, D'Amato, all of 
those who worked on this, so that we can have more money available to 
deal with the highway problems. The ``surface transportation problems'' 
is what we ought to really call this bill, a bill to solve surface 
transportation problems. My State is at least one-fifth of the land 
mass of the United States, and it is not recognized in this bill as 
being a State that needs highways, a State that needs assistance in 
dealing with the areas where we can't build highways in the marine 
highway system. Particularly, we need assistance in dealing with how do 
we get our ferries built under the Federal law that requires them built 
in this country and recognize them as mass transportation? If you go 
into the corridors where they are putting money into mass 
transportation, you will find we are buying rights of way, laying 
track, building terminals. We are doing a lot of things. Those same 
people who go to Seattle and then go up to Alaska on our ferries can 
travel all the way across the country under mass transportation, but 
when they get on our ferries to go up into Alaska, it's no longer mass 
transportation. If you ask the people on the ferries, they believe 
those are part of the mass transportation system, but it is not under 
this law.

  I withdraw my objection to the request of the Senator, but I am going 
to be around here for a few days until we get some of these issues 
settled to our satisfaction and know that we can come into the 21st 
century along with everybody else as far as a new surface 
transportation program. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think there is a unanimous consent 
request pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page S1389]]

  Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I might say 
to my good friend from Alaska, my State of Montana has the same problem 
Alaska has, being a thinly populated State. We have very much 
experienced a lot of these same problems with border crossings and what 
not. One of the issues the Senator mentioned was the border crossings, 
and maybe there is a way we can work that out in this bill. The mass 
transit provisions, though--the ferries, for example--are not within 
this committee's jurisdiction. That is within the Banking Committee's 
jurisdiction. We expect to have an amendment soon. The Senator makes a 
basic, good point. It is similar to one I have made many times. I 
appreciate his coming to the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have checked, and since we have become 
a State, we have built very few new bridges. We have replaced the ones 
destroyed in the 1964 earthquake, with one exception. The reason we 
have not built new bridges is we haven't had any new roads.
  Mr. President, I will not object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
changes that have been made to the ISTEA II bill. This legislation is 
now much more balanced and fair to all states than the original bill 
last fall. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, 
Senator Chafee, and other Senators involved for their assistance in 
improving this bill.
  I was never happy with the original bill, because it falls way short 
of addressing New Jersey's growing needs. While the underlying bill 
recognized the special situation of some states, particularly large, 
western, low-density states, and those in the Southeast, it did not 
recognize the unique needs of densely populated, urbanized states with 
significant passenger, commerce and freight traffic.
  Mr. President, last year, the ISTEA II bill that came to the floor 
was not regionally balanced and did not recognize the special needs of 
high density, urban states like New Jersey.
  This amendment includes a program that I authored which is designed 
to address the needs of high density, urban states. Called the High 
Density Transportation Program, this new program addresses the special 
needs of states where high population density and heavy traffic volume 
create perpetual bottlenecks in the flow of goods and people through 
our national transportation system, resulting in tremendous wear and 
tear on the roads and reduced economic productivity. We can all argue 
over how much money should go to one region or another, but to 
deliberately leave out factors that allow for consideration for high 
density, urban states in a major transportation bill is unacceptable. 
That's what happened in the original bill.
  That's why I am very pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Chairman of the 
relevant Subcommittee, agreed to include this new High Density program 
in the new bill. And that's why this is now a more balanced bill.
  The High Density Transportation Program is a $360 million annual 
program, distributed over five years. New Jersey will be guaranteed $36 
million each year, and will be eligible for more, for projects that 
reduce congestion, increase mobility, and maintain the infrastructure. 
Those projects may include construction and maintenance of roads, mass 
transit, bridges, even bike paths. As long as those projects reduce 
congestion and improve mobility.
  This program, coupled with the increase in apportionments and the 
funds the Committee included in the Bridge Discretionary account last 
fall, show a total highway funding increase for New Jersey of 
approximately $780 million over the life of the bill. This comes out to 
an average of about $130 million a year over six years. This increase 
is on top of the yearly average of $532 million a year the original 
ISTEA II bill included for New Jersey.
  Mr. President, this proposal is simple. It gives all states an 
increase, but also accounts for the needs of states that were not 
fairly accommodated in the original bill. With this new proposal, New 
Jerseyans can breathe a sigh of relief, since our needs will begin to 
be met.
  Mr. President, those needs are great. Transportation funding is 
especially critical in my state. The Garden State is one of the most 
important links in our nation's transportation system. The most densely 
populated state in the nation, it also has the highest vehicle density 
on its roads. Located between two heavily populated metropolitan areas, 
New Jersey is known as the corridor state, linking commerce and travel 
to the northeast and the rest of the country. Over 60 billion vehicle 
miles are traveled on New Jersey's roads annually. The ability of 
trucks and cars to move freely on New Jersey's roads directly affects 
New Jersey's economy, as well as the entire region.
  Millions of people have traveled along New Jersey's highways. They 
travel from the South and West to New York City, Boston and New 
England. And people in New York and New England travel through New 
Jersey on their way to places like the Jersey shore, Florida or 
Washington, D.C.
  But our roads are used for more than just vacations. Every day, 
324,000 tons of goods made in New Jersey are transported on New 
Jersey's roads by 134,000 trucks.
  Many of these trucks are coming from the Ports of Newark and 
Elizabeth. They are transporting cars and other goods that arrive from 
countries like South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Taiwan and 
Indonesia. The Port of New York and New Jersey is the busiest on the 
East Coast.
  Despite the critical importance of New Jersey's infrastructure to the 
nation, it is in dismally poor shape, and it is getting worse by the 
hour. Nearly 20 percent of New Jersey's interstate mileage is in poor 
or mediocre condition. And more than 45 percent of our bridges are in 
deficient condition.
  Mr. President, New Jersey's roads and bridges take an unbelievable 
pounding. Our hot summers and harsh winters take a huge toll on its 
infrastructure. Road salt in the winter and ocean salt year round add 
to the damage.
  In addition, New Jerseyans and those who travel through my state 
often face untenable congestion. Travelers in both cars and trucks 
struggle for hours every day with New Jersey's highway stops and 
starts. And our heavily used roads and bridges are badly in need of 
additional maintenance.
  Mr. President, the status of New Jersey's transportation 
infrastructure has a direct effect on the state and region's economic 
vitality and on every resident's quality of life. But, more 
importantly, it affects the entire nation's economic vitality. And, the 
future challenges to that infrastructure are ominous. In the next six 
years, there probably will be more travel on our roads, more cargo 
coming into our ports and more rapid deterioration of our 
transportation infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I seek to educate my colleagues about my State, 
because I believe that New Jersey should get its fair share. No more, 
no less.
  Regrettably, last fall's ISTEA bill provided New Jersey with less 
money in 1998 than it received in 1997. Our transportation needs 
increase every year, but our funding level went down under the previous 
ISTEA bill. This was not acceptable.
  The last time I took to the floor to discuss S. 1173, I spoke for 
nearly four hours about the devastating effects this bill will have for 
New Jersey's transportation infrastructure. Since then there have been 
important changes which have greatly improved this bill. New funding 
has enabled the Environment Committee to ease the pain to some states 
which were hit the hardest by the original Environment Committee 
apportionment formulas.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation, and our 
roads carry more traffic per lane mile than any state in the country. 
New Jersey is the true corridor state. Ten percent of the nation's 
total freight either originates, terminates, or passes through New 
Jersey. These conditions create burdens that have a direct negative 
impact of the state's transportation infrastructure, the environment, 
and economic productivity. In addition, our high level of urbanization 
increases the costs associated with road repair and construction. The 
High Density Transportation Program is established to address those 
conditions.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Chafee for his work on 
this

[[Page S1390]]

bill and commend him for his continuing efforts to produce a good and 
balanced ISTEA reauthorization bill. The Committee's decision to 
include the High Density program truly improves this bill over last 
year's. As I said at the Committee mark-up, we may have to nominate 
Senator Chafee for a peace prize by the time this process is over.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Warner 
and Senator Baucus for all of their hard work and their leadership on 
this bill.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and other 
Committee members in the coming months as we debate this bill on the 
Senate floor and in Conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island renew his 
request?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do renew that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1684 to amendment No. 1676) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, the amendment is adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The motion to reconsider was part of that and it was laid 
on the table?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is all going to be original text?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Moseley-Braun and Wyden be added as original cosponsors to the Chafee 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Collins be added as a cosponsor of the Chafee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is the order.
  Senator Wyden has an amendment that has been agreed to. Actually, it 
turns out that it is my amendment; I am introducing it. This has been 
agreed to. We would like to move to the McConnell amendment. That will 
be a long one. I don't see Senator McConnell here, but I urge him to 
come because we want to get started on that. There is a time agreement 
suggested of 3 hours on his side, 2 on our side, and 45 minutes for 
Senator Domenici from New Mexico. We are ready to go.


                           Amendment No. 1702

(Purpose: To further clarify the integrated decision-making process for 
                    surface transportation projects)

  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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself, 
     Mr. Wyden and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1702.

  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 162, after the end of line 25, insert the 
     following:
       ``(5) Concurrent Processing.--The term, `concurrent 
     processing' means to the fullest extent practicable, and to 
     the extent otherwise required, agencies shall prepare 
     environmental impact statements and environmental assessments 
     concurrently with and integrated with environmental analyses 
     and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and 
     Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the 
     National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et 
     seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) and other environmental review laws and executive 
     orders.''
       On page 163, lines 10-12, strike ``with the requirements'' 
     through the end of the sentence, and insert ``for surface 
     transportation projects at the earliest possible time, 
     including, to the extent appropriate, at the planning stage 
     with the agreement of the State transportation agencies and 
     the cooperating agencies.''
       On page 163, lines 17-18, strike ``with the planning, 
     predesign stage, and decision making''.
       On page 164, line 2, strike ``initiatives.'' and insert 
     ``initiatives, economic development and transportation 
     initiatives.''
       On page 164, lines 17-18, strike ``with the transportation 
     planning and decisionmaking of the'', and insert ``for 
     surface transportation projects by''.
       On page 166, line 2, delete ``(rather than sequential)''.
       On page 167, line 7, insert ``and the public on request'' 
     after ``cooperating agencies''.
       On page 168, line 11, strike ``grant'', and insert ``take 
     action on''.
       On page 169, after the end of line 10, insert the 
     following:
       ``and assure early consideration of alternatives to a 
     proposed project, including alternatives that address 
     transportation demand consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(3).''
       On page 169, strike lines 20 through page 170, line 2.
       On page 170, line 15, after ``agreement'', insert ``that 
     has been developed with public involvement''.
       On page 172, line 3, after ``Approaches.--'' insert ``In 
     addition to existing formal public participation 
     opportunities,''.
       On page 172, line 5, after ``used'', insert ``, to the 
     extent appropriate,''.
       On page 174, line 19, after ``subsection (a)'', insert 
     ``consistent with Part 1501, et seq., of Title 40 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations.''
       On page 175, line 6, insert the following new subsection 
     and redesignate the following subsections accordingly:
       (c) Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Selection Process.--It shall not be considered to be 
     a conflict of interest, as defined under section 1.33 of 
     title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, for a State to 
     procure, under a single contract, the services of a 
     consultant to prepare any environmental assessments or 
     analyses required, including environmental impact statements, 
     as well as subsequent engineering and design work on the same 
     project, provided that the State has conduced an independent 
     multi-disciplined review that assesses the objectivity of any 
     analysis, environmental assessment or environmental impact 
     statement prior to its submission to the agency that approves 
     the project.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senators Wyden and Graham to improve the provisions of ISTEA II 
that establish an integrated decisionmaking process for surface 
transportation projects--the so-called NEPA streamlining provisions.
  ISTEA II includes a number of provisions designed to better integrate 
NEPA's requirements into the decisionmaking process for surface 
transportation projects. The intent was to provide for earlier 
consideration of environmental impacts under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and to consolidate the permitting process for highway 
projects--a goal that we can all share. With the help of the sponsors 
of the original provisions, Senators Graham and Wyden, as well as 
others on the committee, I believe that we have reached agreement on a 
package of improving amendments to that language that will address 
concerns that have been raised by both the environmental community and 
the State transportation agencies.
  The amendment will, among other things: allow greater public access 
to key decision documents relating to surface transportation projects; 
provide for early consideration of alternatives that address 
transportation demand alternatives; and clarify that the state 
transportation planning process does not trigger NEPA.
  With these improvements, I believe that we have crafted a process 
that will indeed improve the decisionmaking process for surface 
transportation projects.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been agreed to. It 
clarifies the integrated decisionmaking process for surface 
transportation projects. It has been worked out. It deals, to a degree, 
with the National Environmental Policy Administration Act provisions. 
We have all worked on it. I want to thank Senators Graham and Wyden for 
their fine work on this. It is a fine amendment. I know the Senator 
from Oregon is here.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will only take 2 or 3 minutes. I thank the 
Senator from Oregon for letting me impose on him. I want to say that I 
am very sympathetic to the case that has been made by the distinguished 
senior Senator from Alaska. I hope we can do something to help him. He 
is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and all of us who have 
anything in this bill at all, who are impacted by this bill, all of us 
who support this bill, are going to have to look at this chairman

[[Page S1391]]

down the road to help us to implement what we are doing here. I hope we 
will find a way to help him.
  I am the only former House Member who is now serving in the U.S. 
Senate who voted for the addition of Alaska to the Union. I was sworn 
in with the late Senator Gruening, about whom Mr. Stevens spoke. That 
case has been made time and again. I want to say, Mr. President, I have 
never heard the case made better than Senator Stevens has made it. I 
can understand how his people feel. They need help. It seems to me that 
whatever helps Alaska helps West Virginia. That is the way I look at 
it. I want to be supportive of finding a positive response to the 
Senator's needs. I want to help him.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I thank the 
Senator from West Virginia. That help would be meaningful.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pending business, I believe, is the 
Chafee-Wyden-Graham amendment. I want to take a few minutes to explain 
to my colleagues what we are pursuing with this amendment. Before 
Senator Byrd leaves the floor, I want to express my thanks to him for 
the very extensive input and help that he has given this Member, both 
on the entire bill and particularly on the provisions that relate to 
streamlining of the ISTEA permit process both on the transportation and 
the environmental side. I thank Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, another way to describe this amendment, 
which deals with the transportation and environmental review process 
that is central to getting these projects on line and dealing with our 
transportation issues, is the ``do-it-right-once'' amendment.
  What we have in this country today is essentially a disjointed 
process for doing transportation and environmental reviews. In effect, 
you have one track going down the road trying to address the various 
requirements essential to OK'ing a project from the transportation 
side. You then have a separate effort going forward to deal with 
environmental reviews. Instead of the two efforts being combined at 
every step of the process, time and money is wasted as these separate 
undertakings go forward. So what you have is an extraordinary amount of 
duplication. You have duplication as it relates to the environmental 
side and as it relates to the transportation side, and you waste an 
extraordinary amount of time as it relates to getting these projects 
actually constructed.
  I think, as every Senator knows, for transportation projects time is 
money. Delays in approving transportation projects not only increase 
the cost of these projects; they also cause lost productivity to our 
economy and added stress for the commuters that are stuck in traffic.
  This bill is the result of extensive bipartisan discussion. Senator 
Graham and I began this in the committee many months ago. Senator Smith 
of New Hampshire has been extremely helpful in this effort and, of 
course, Senators Chafee and Byrd have been very extensively involved. 
We have now forged a comprehensive package that will streamline 
transportation and environmental reviews and bring much-needed relief 
for these key projects.
  The bill now will increase the funding for critical highway projects 
that will ensure that this money is better spent, because we will be 
speeding up the process for getting the projects built.
  Let me be very clear to the Senate. We are not talking about changing 
the environmental laws in any way. I wouldn't support that kind of 
effort, and my cosponsors of this amendment wouldn't support it either. 
This effort to streamline transportation environmental reviews, in 
fact, keeps every one of the environmental laws in place. It simply 
says that we are going to improve the decisionmaking process by 
building the consideration of environmental factors into transportation 
decisions at the front end of the process rather than at the tail end 
as has so often happens.
  So if we were to do nothing else in this bill, nothing else but to 
say at the beginning of an effort to get a transportation project built 
we were going to start consulting on environmental issues at that time, 
I think it would be a worthy endeavor. But this legislation doesn't 
just streamline the process; it complies with the environmental laws, 
and it ensures that there is early consideration of all realistic 
alternatives. In the urban areas, that means looking at transit, at 
bike paths, and a variety of nontraditional transportation solutions. 
But we don't require pointless consideration of these approaches in 
places where they don't make sense.
  Today's changes also increase the opportunities for public 
involvement. Many of our colleagues have been visited by transportation 
groups, by State officials, by environmental leaders, saying that they 
wanted public involvement early in the decisionmaking process. This 
amendment ensures that is done. In my view, it also increases the 
chance for early public support when the decisions are made rather 
than, as happens so often today, having public opposition develop later 
in the process, which can hold things up for many months.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, some have argued that you might do even 
more than this amendment envisages. They say, put transportation 
officials in charge of everything; put them in charge of transportation 
and environmental matters. Under that approach, which I think would be 
a mistake, I think we are not going to end up saving a lot of time in 
the review process. More likely, it may lead to questionable 
environmental decisions and considerable delay when these decisions are 
challenged in court. There is a better route to improving our 
transportation system. We can make the process faster, cheaper, and 
better while complying with all of our environmental laws at the same 
time.
  I see that the chairman of the committee has returned. I want to 
express my thanks to Chairman Chafee. When I and Senator Graham brought 
him this ISTEA streamlining amendment last summer, he gave us 
considerable time as we sought then to bring together the industry and 
environmental groups to support it. Also, the ranking minority member, 
Senator Baucus, who has helped me as a new Senator on a variety of 
issues, was involved at every step of the way. I thank Senator Baucus 
for that effort.
  We are here now as a result of the deliberations that began this 
summer. This is an amendment that saves time and money and helps 
strengthen our environmental laws and public support for them at the 
same time. I urge support of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWINE). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has brought a very 
valuable addition to the NEPA process. Most of us, when we deal with 
the National Environmental Policy Act with respect to projects, believe 
that the policy is right; that is, that environmental alternatives 
should be considered fully. But we also experience delays, sometimes so 
long that we begin to wonder, what is going on here? Is there a better 
way of doing this? All of us have been there.
  This is the very first very serious effort to try to solve that 
problem; that is, on the one hand, keep the protection of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, which I think we all want --this Senator 
certainly does--but, on the other hand, make sure that the process is 
streamlined so that it doesn't take quite so long, so the decisions can 
be made, and so there is a little more confidence amongst the public in 
what these various agencies are attempting to do.
  It is simple. It just makes the review process not sequential but 
concurrent. It should have been concurrent in the first place.
  Second, it sets up a schedule of review at the start that the 
agencies must agree on so each agency knows kind of what it is doing 
first, if that is the theory, and, beyond that, it sets up a 
consultation process when there is disagreement among the agencies.
  But it is a very good amendment. In fact, I think that this is going 
to go a lot further--the effect of this amendment--and help many, many 
more people than is realized. We often have

[[Page S1392]]

these grandiose amendments and bills around here, and they sound like 
they are going to do a lot and end up not doing much at all. This is a 
little bit the opposite. It is the process; it is streamlining. Some 
may think that it is not a big deal, but it will be a big deal--a huge 
deal--certainly if it is implemented in the spirit in which the 
amendment is intended--and I expect that will be the case. As a 
consequence, we public servants will be serving our people a little bit 
better than we would have otherwise.
  I compliment the Senator very much on his amendment. It is a very 
good idea. I thank him for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it has been a great pleasure to work with 
the Senator from Oregon over the last several months in the development 
of this legislation. I share the assessment of the Senator from 
Montana. It will be seen as one of the most important new ideas in 
highway transportation planning.
  Basically, it is consistent with the evolution that has occurred 
within the American environmental movement. It wasn't too many years 
ago that a principal goal of many who described themselves as being 
environmentalists was to achieve the goal of no growth, no action. It 
was essentially a negative and defensive posture. As the environmental 
movement has become a more pervasive part of our society in the way in 
which we look at our responsibility, it has become a movement which 
attempts to shape the future in an affirmative way that is sensitive to 
environmental considerations rather than stagnate in the status quo.
  I believe this amendment is part of that evolutionary process, 
because what it basically says is, let us ask everyone who is a 
stakeholder in a major Federal participatory transportation project to 
sit down at the table when the project is in its conceptual form. If 
there is a problem with this project that is going to render it 
incapable of ever being permitted, let's put that on the table at the 
beginning, and, if the project will fundamentally change it, relocate 
it to a more appropriate site, or whatever is necessary.
  If, on the other hand, it is not inherently flawed but there are 
going to have to be modifications in the design or construction 
techniques, let's know that at the beginning of the process so that 
everyone is operating from a position of candor and openness.
  Unfortunately, the opposite of what I just described is what happens 
too often today; that is, that these requirements are not disclosed 
until the project has been many years in planning and design and 
millions of dollars spent, and then you find out that there are these 
flaws, or fatal conditions, or issues that will require a similar 
investment of time and money for redesign.
  So I think this is an amendment that will advance the modern approach 
to environmentalism and reduce the legitimate public anger and 
frustration when they see millions of dollars and years of time being 
discarded because of issues raised at the end of the process, and it 
will build a new level of confidence and a higher level of 
environmental sensitivity in our transportation planning.
  So I am strongly supportive of this amendment. I appreciate the 
leadership that so many Members of this Chamber have given to this. I 
particularly commend my friend and colleague from Oregon and urge that 
the full Senate join in support of this and that we see when this bill 
is negotiated with the House of Representatives that the provision will 
be included in any final legislation that is sent to the President for 
his signature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are ready to vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I apologize. I neglected to mention the 
hard work of the Senator from Florida. He spoke earlier. I know both he 
and Senator Wyden from Oregon worked very hard on this, as did Senator 
Smith, who is not on the floor with us. But the three of them worked 
together to put this together.
  I might say it is another example of the cooperation and compromise. 
Often Senators stand up on the floor, and, I might say, speak 
rhetorically, knowing that they are not going to get the results but 
trying to score points back home. These are Senators that worked 
together to accomplish something solid. And it is worthwhile. I 
compliment the three of them for being cooperative in compromising and 
getting the work done.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to salute the Senators who worked 
so hard on this: Senator Wyden and Senator Graham. We are very proud 
that they are Members of the Environment Committee. They are very 
valuable members of that committee. And Senator Smith worked very hard, 
and is likewise.
  So we are ready to go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Chafee-
Wyden-Graham-Baucus-Smith amendment No. 1702.
  The amendment (No. 1702) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas would like to talk 
on an amendment that we have agreed to and then is going to discuss 
another subject.
  I guess we have not moved to reconsider this.
  Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Rhode Island 
a question? I have a unanimous consent request to ask a member of my 
staff to be on the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Lee 
from the Florida Department of Transportation be given floor privileges 
throughout the consideration of ISTEA II.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed shortly, following the Senator from Texas having the floor, to 
the consideration of Senator McConnell's amendment regarding contract 
preferences, and that there be 8 hours of debate, equally divided 
between Senator McConnell and Senators Chafee and Baucus, prior to the 
motion to table, with an additional 45 minutes under the control of 
Senator Domenici. I further ask unanimous consent that, following the 
expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or 
in relation to the amendment and that no other amendments be in order 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me, if I could, ask the chairman a 
question. Does he want me to introduce the amendment that is agreed to 
and get that taken care of?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I think now is a good time, I say to the Senator from 
Texas. She has an amendment that has been agreed to. Why don't we 
present that and dispose of that?


                Amendment No. 1703 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this just reiterates the importance of 
the cooperation between the Department of Transportation and the 
transportation research projects now being done by the Department of 
Transportation through several universities in my State of Texas, as 
well as California, Minnesota, and the State of Washington. They are 
doing very valuable research on relieving congestion. Through 
transportation and computer systems, they are able to determine how you 
can relieve congestion in our major cities.
  I appreciate the fact that both sides have agreed to this amendment.
  I offer it for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1703.
       At the end of line 16, page 397 insert:
       ``(3) Continuation of partnership agreements.--The 
     Secretary shall continue through to completion public/private 
     partnership agreements previously executed to

[[Page S1393]]

     promote the integration of surface transportation management 
     systems, including the integration of highway, transit, 
     railroad and emergency management systems.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, now I would like to see if there could 
be an amendment--Senator Abraham wants to offer a short amendment. I am 
told it will take only a couple of minutes. I am willing to let him do 
that if it is acceptable to the Senator from Rhode Island, but it would 
change the unanimous consent.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Why do we not adopt the Senator's amendment, unless you 
want more time on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment of 
the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary procedure, please. Where are 
we?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Hutchison 
amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We have reviewed it. It is fine on our side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1703) 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to introduce an 
amendment at this time, after which the Senator from Texas would then 
be able to resume the floor for the purpose of the remarks she had 
previously been approved to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to offer his 
amendment.


                Amendment No. 1704 To Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To make access to the Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, Michigan, 
                         eligible for funding).

  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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 Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1704 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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 136, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 11  . AMBASSADOR BRIDGE ACCESS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 129 of title 23, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law, 
     improvements to access roads and construction of access 
     roads, approaches, and related facilities (such as signs, 
     lights, and signal) necessary to connect the Ambassador 
     Bridge in Detroit, Michigan, to the Interstate System shall 
     be eligible for funds apportioned under paragraphs (1)(C) and 
     (3) of section 104(b) of that title.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Funds described in subsection (a) shall 
     not be used for any improvement to, or construction of, the 
     bridge itself.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the Ambassador Bridge is the single 
greatest border crossing in the United States. Almost 10 million 
vehicles cross the bridge each year; almost 3 million commercial 
vehicles, as many as 10,000 trucks per day. It constitutes, in terms of 
business activity, almost $350 billion a year in trade for the United 
States. In fact, 26 percent of all United States-Canada trade traverses 
the Ambassador Bridge. That trade is expected to increase by 180 
percent by the year 2015, which would translate into almost 5.4 million 
commercial vehicles a year.
  This major trade artery is not connected directly to any of the 
nearby interstates however. That requires commercial vehicles to 
traverse local roads to get to the freeways and interstates. In these 
times of ``just in time'' deliveries, these delays are totally 
unjustified for such a major trade route. However, even though it is 
privately owned, it is part and parcel of our National Highway System. 
However, because it is privately owned, the Federal Highway 
Administration has determined that the State of Michigan may not use 
any of its Federal funds to improve the approaches to the bridge. This 
amendment will allow the State to spend its funds for these projects, 
if it wishes.
  No State will lose any funds with this amendment. It simply will 
allow Michigan to use the funds it already receives through the 
independently-derived allocations on these approaches. Furthermore, no 
funds will actually be spent on the privately-owned portion of the 
bridge, only on the publicly-owned approaches.
  Finally, the bridge authority is providing the Michigan Department of 
Transportation with toll credit information. This may provide up to all 
of Michigan's 20 percent matching share requirement.
  Mr. President, I offer the amendment on behalf of myself as well as, 
I know, Senator Levin.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I hope we can 
agree to it at this time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes; the amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, 
also would like to be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues from 
Michigan in offering an amendment which I understand the committee will 
accept. I thank the managers.
  The first amendment allows improvements and construction on the 
United States approaches to the Ambassador Bridge from Detroit to 
Windsor, Canada, to be eligible for federal funding. As my colleagues 
may know, the Detroit-Windsor border crossing sees one of the largest, 
if not largest, volumes of international trade in the world. As such, 
the corresponding volume of traffic is tremendous, particularly truck 
traffic. The amendment does not allocate funds to repair the years of 
wear and tear, simply allows currently publicly owned streets and 
facilities to compete for federal funding. This amendment is important 
to the city of Detroit, the State of Michigan, and the country because 
of the significant volume of international trade moving across the 
bridge.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We accept the amendment. I think it is important to 
clarify that, as a result of this, there is no new money for Michigan 
but that Michigan will be able to use its own money, particularly its 
NHS funds, for this access road, basically, to the bridge. With that 
understanding, we accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1704) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized, under 
the previous order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are we speaking as in morning business 
for this time period, so that I can introduce a bill? If not, I ask 
unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison and Mr. Grams pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1711 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Texas that we have a little time here if she has anything further she 
would like to discuss on this important measure that she presented.
  The program now is for Senator McConnell to come over and present his 
amendment. He said he would be here at 12:30. We have extra time should 
the Senator want it. Apparently not, so I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1394]]

  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.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
members of the Joint Committee on Taxation staff be given the privilege 
of the floor during the ISTEA debate: Lindy Paull, Ben Hartley, Tom 
Barthold, Judy Owens, Steve Arkin, Joe Nega, Carolyn Smith and Maxine 
Terry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have two amendments that have been 
cleared on both sides. I will start with the Inhofe amendment.


                Amendment No. 1705 to Amendment No. 1676

    (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to contracting for 
                    engineering and design services)

  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 Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1705 to amendment No. 1676.

  The text of the amendment follows:

       On page 135, strikes lines 2 through 5 and insert the 
     following: ``aid highway funds, or reasonably expected or 
     intended to be part of 1 or more such projects, shall be 
     performed under a contract awarded in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) unless the simplified acquisition procedures 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulations apply.''
       On page 135, line 7, insert ``, or salary limitation 
     inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations,'' 
     after ``restriction''.
       On page 135, line 15, strike ``cost principles'' and insert 
     ``procedures, cost principles,'' after ``the''.
       On page 135, line 24, strike ``process, contracting based 
     on'' and insert ``procedures of''.
       On page 136, line 12, strike ``process'' and insert 
     ``procedure''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment deals with contracting for 
engineering and design services. It would ensure that the engineering- 
and design-related aspects of a project promote competition, foster the 
use of innovative technologies and ensure consistency in the pricing of 
engineering and design contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1705) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1706 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To allow funding under the surface transportation program for 
programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions caused by extreme cold start 
                              conditions)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Abraham. I send it 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 Mr. Abraham, 
     for himself, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1706 to amendment No. 1676.

  The text of the amendment follows:

       On page 183, at the end of line 23 insert the following:
       (5) in subsection (b)(9), by striking ``section 
     108(f)(1)(A) (other than clauses (xii) and (xvi)) of the 
     Clean Air Act'' and inserting ``section 108(f)(1)(A) (other 
     than clause (xvi)) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7408(f)(1)(A))'';

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment would allow funds that are 
allocated under the Surface Transportation Program to be used for 
programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions caused by extreme cold-start 
conditions.
  The problem is that in the northern States when cold weather comes, 
the starting of an engine is the highest emission point from the 
engine. Ninety percent of engine wear happens when the car is started. 
The engine wear in cold climate conditions is twice this amount.
  This amendment has been cleared by both sides. What it will do is 
permit these funds to be used for some kind of heaters that might be 
installed to warm up the catalytic converter or other aspects of the 
engine so that when it is started, it will not start cold and will not 
have the heavy emissions that occur absent some warming techniques.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment, and we think it 
is a good idea.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1706) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the votes by which 
these two amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Hemphill 
and Michael Ling, fellows on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, be given the privilege of the floor during debate on S. 
1173.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are operating under an agreement that 
the Senator from Kentucky was to begin debating his amendment at 12:30. 
That was 35 minutes ago. I know that the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Chafee, and myself very much want to help the Senator from 
Kentucky by finding time for him to debate this amendment--offer it and 
debate it. We reached this agreement with the Senator from Kentucky 
some time ago, over an hour ago, that he would be here at 12:30 to 
offer the amendment. The chairman has been so very gracious in 
accommodating Senators right and left and from all parts of the country 
to exercise their rights. I inquire as to where might our tardy Senator 
be, or when is he going to be here?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I don't know where our errant brother is. 
We are ready. I think the ranking member makes a good point. We have 
been waiting. The agreement was that we were going to start at 12:30. 
In the famous words of the Senate, the Senator has been described as 
being ``on his way'' for the last 45 minutes. So I hope he will be here 
soon. I must say that I am thinking of, at quarter past, getting up and 
proposing--and that's 7 minutes from now--that all time after that be 
deducted from the proponents' side. Let's wait and see. I am going to 
make an effort to round up the Senator from Kentucky and see if we 
can't get started.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In fact, I agree with the chairman and say that if he is 
not here by 1:45, it would only be fair to the rest of the Senate that 
time be charged against him.
  Mr. President, 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. TORRICELLI. 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. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________