[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.
____________________