[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 22 (Friday, March 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1499-S1505]
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. Mr. President, I will send an amendment to the desk. I 
will not ask for its immediate consideration. This is an amendment that 
would require the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the amounts 
made available under the ISTEA of 1998 for the fiscal year 1998 by the 
amounts made available under the extension that we did last fall, the 
so-called 6-month extension bill.
  Now, last year, Mr. President, as you recall, the Senate passed a 6-
month extension bill which allowed the States to use their unobligated 
balances to fund eligible transportation projects. The bill also 
allocated an additional $5.5 billion in new money to the States.
  As you remember, the ISTEA I expired on September 30 so we knew we 
were not going to be able to enact a new ISTEA bill-- indeed we have 
not enacted it yet--and that carried us over to May 1 of this year. In 
it we provided not only that States could use their unobtained balances 
but there was also allocated an additional $5.5 billion.
  The Senate agreed to provide this new $5.5 billion on the condition 
that the amounts allocated under ISTEA II in fiscal year 1998 would be 
reduced by the amount each State received under the 6-month extension. 
In other words, yes, we gave them additional money to carry them 
through during this extension, but when we enact a final bill, as I 
hope we will do next week, then the amounts that the States would have 
received would be deducted from the amounts that we provide for them 
for the fiscal year 1998.
  For example, the amount each State will receive in the surface 
transportation program, so-called STP funds, under ISTEA II will be 
reduced by their portion of the more than $1 billion provided in STP 
funds under the 6-month extension.
  Now, there are several reasons why this extension reduction is 
necessary. First of all, ISTEA II provides money for each fiscal year 
1998 through 2003. It does not provide a half-year amount for 1998. If 
this reduction is not required, States would be receiving one-and-a-
half times as much as they should for 1998. In other words, we give 
them the entire 1998 money in the bill, and we have also previously 
given them half of that so it doesn't make sense for them to have one-
and-a-half times as much money for 1998 as required. Indeed, our bill 
would be subject to a point of order.
  Second, a reduction ensures that each State will receive money based 
on the new formula provided in ISTEA II instead of the old formula or 
amounts received in the past. We worked hard to bring this new formula 
up to date in order to make it fairer, and we believe we have achieved 
that.
  So, Mr. President, this technical and noncontroversial amendment has 
been cleared by both sides. We want to make sure that this amendment is 
available for any of the States who would choose to review it. They can 
get in touch with me and we will give them a copy, obviously.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1719

  (Purpose: To include the enhancement of safety at at-grade railway-
highway crossings and the achievement of national transportation safety 
 goals in the purpose of the intelligent transportation system program)

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Mr. Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1719.

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

       On page 385, strike lines 13 and 14 and insert the 
     following: creasing the number and severity of collisions;
       ``(14) to encourage the use of intelligent transportation 
     systems to promote the achievement of national transportation 
     safety goals, including safety at at-grade Railway-highway 
     crossings; and
       ``(15) to accommodate the needs of all users of''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment that I am offering on 
behalf of Senator Kerrey from Nebraska adds another goal to the 
intelligent transportation system's research program in the underlying 
bill. It would add the achievement of national transportation safety 
goals, including at-grade railway-highway crossings to the ITS, 
intelligence transportation system program.
  I think it is a good idea to enhance the ITS program. We all know the 
problems of rail crossings. There are a lot of accidents and deaths, 
regrettably, at railway-highway crossings. This added language will 
help in the development of the ITS to try to find ways to minimize 
these types of things.
  I urge that we agree to this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1719) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1720 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To include the development of techniques to eliminate at-
 grade railway-highway crossings in the goals of the innovative bridge 
                   research and construction program)

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1720.

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

       On page 371, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert the following:

     ``in highway bridges and structures;
       ``(5) the development of cost-effective and innovative 
     techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from 
     railroad traffic and
       ``(6) the development of highway bridges and''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment would add to the types of 
works the Secretary should undertake with regard to innovative bridge 
research. The Secretary would have the flexibility to look at 
innovative techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from 
railroad traffic. It is

[[Page S1500]]

designed, obviously, to deal with the problems of congestion, deaths 
and accidents on bridges.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is acceptable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1720) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1721 to Amendment No. 1676

   (Purpose: To ensure that there is adequate opportunity for public 
participation in the certification of transportation planning processes 
                         of metropolitan areas)

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1721.

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

       Beginning on page 265, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 266, line 1 and insert the following:
       ``(B) Requirements for certification.--The Secretary may 
     make the certification under subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the transportation planning process complies with the 
     requirements of this section and other applicable 
     requirements of Federal law;
       ``(ii) there is a transportation improvement program for 
     the area that has been approved by the metropolitan planning 
     organization and the Governor;
       ``(iii) the public has been given adequate opportunity 
     during the certification process to comment on--

       ``(I) the public participation process conducted by the 
     metropolitan planning organization; and
       ``(II) the extent to which the transportation improvement 
     program for the metropolitan area takes into account the 
     needs of the entire metropolitan area, including the needs of 
     low and moderate income residents, and the requirement of 
     Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; and

       ``(iv) public comments are--

       ``(I) included in the documentation supporting the 
     metropolitan planning organization's request for 
     certification; and
       ``(II) made publicly available.

       ``(C) Effect of failure to certify.--''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that the 
public has an adequate opportunity to comment on the certification 
process in transportation management areas.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. This amendment is agreeable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1721) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Timothy Hess, 
a fellow in the office of Senator Bob Graham, be given floor privileges 
during the ISTEA debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1722 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To add the projected increase in commercial traffic to the 
factors that the Secretary of Transportation is required to consider in 
     selecting recipients of grants for trade corridors and border 
              infrastructure safety and congestion relief)

  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. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1722.

  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 98, line 13, insert ``, and is projected to grow in 
     the future,'' after ``103-182)''.
       On page 98, line 17, insert ``, and is projected to grow,'' 
     after ``grown''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is a modification to the 
border crossing and trade corridor program. It is for the Secretary to 
consider an area's future growth while awarding grant funds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and think 
it is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1722) 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, it might be a faulty assumption on my part; 
are we in a period of morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are currently considering S. 1173, the 
highway bill.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1725 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will be really very brief.
  I have been involved in negotiations, as all of us are, on this 
legislation, all of us trying to use our leverage to fight for what we 
think is right. I have been very focused on a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution amendment which I think will command widespread support from 
both Democrats and Republicans.
  I know, for example, that this resolution was initially something I 
did with Senator Mack, who still strongly supports it--Senator 
Hutchinson, and many, I hope the Chair.
  This is just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution--could be amendment; I 
hope it would be a separate resolution, but one way or the other--that, 
basically, strongly urges the President, acting through the permanent 
representatives of the United States--and I am just looking at this; I 
will quote his record--``to make all efforts necessary to pass a 
resolution criticizing the People's Republic of China for its human 
rights abuses in China, Tibet at the annual meeting of the United 
Nations Commission on Human Rights.''
  Mr. President, the point is that I am not going to get into any sharp 
debate or attack people who are not here right now, but I think the 
point of this resolution, the amendment, is to make sure that we take 
some action before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 
convenes in Geneva, which would be on March 16.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up this resolution, 
I think, on Thursday, but my concern, as a U.S. Senator who feels 
strongly about this, about human rights questions and has worked 
closely with a number of really great people in these human rights 
organizations--and I tell you, in some ways, one of the biggest

[[Page S1501]]

thrills of my life has been to have a chance to work with Wei 
Jingsheng, who was just in the office and who is very focused in on 
this.
  In any case, what I wanted to make sure of is--and I think many 
Republicans agree with us--that the Foreign Relations Committee meets, 
but that still does not guarantee that we have a resolution or 
amendment on the floor by the end of next week or as soon as possible. 
And really next week is the critical timeframe that we are talking 
about.
  We have gone back and forth on other resolutions that were going to 
be introduced. I know Senator Specter has one he wants to do on Iraq. 
My position is, well, then there ought to be one on China.
  In any case, I think it is no longer necessary for me to do anything 
on the floor of the Senate. I have a commitment by the Senate majority 
leader, Senator Lott. It is a personal commitment, not an official, 
formal commitment. I think it is all I need. I think most of us know, 
if he gives his word, his word is good.
  So, I feel very confident that we, indeed, will be able to deal with 
this resolution in this timeframe, which is so important that really 
the voice of the Senate be heard, the voice of the Congress be heard. 
And certainly I hope the voice of the President and the administration 
will be heard before the Human Rights Commission convenes in Geneva.
  So I thank colleagues for working with me. I certainly thank the 
majority leader for being sensitive and working this out.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a managers' amendment, which I will 
soon send to the desk.
  It is a package of technical and noncontroversial changes to S. 1173. 
A number of changes included in the amendment were recommended by the 
Department of Transportation to improve and clarify provisions in the 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full descriptions of the amendments 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Summary of the Provisions in the Manager's Amendment to S. 1173

       The manager's amendment includes a number of technical and 
     noncontroversial changes to S. 1173. The paragraphs below 
     summarize the items included in the managers amendment that 
     improve the bill.
       On page 5, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the 
     following: Makes a technical change to authorization levels 
     for the Interstate and National Highway System program for 
     fiscal year 1998 through 2001, and 2003.
       On page 7, strike 16 through 20.--Eliminates the 
     duplicative authorization of funds for the Cooperative 
     Federal Lands Transportation Program, as funding for this 
     program was authorized in two places in S. 1173.
       On page 8, line 20, after ``139(a)'', insert the following: 
     Adds language to 104(b) to clarify that the reference to 
     139(a) was to reflect 139(a) before enactment of ISTEA II.
       On page 9, line 16, after ``139(a)'', insert the following: 
     Adds language to 104(b) to clarify that the reference to 
     139(a) was to reflect 139(a) before enactment of ISTEA II.
       On page 10, line 9, insert ``and for the purposes specified 
     in subparagraph--Clarifies the flexibility allowed in 
     spending the Interstate maintenance component and the 
     Interstate bridges component funds on either category.
       On page 43, line 12, strike ``and''.--Facilitates the 
     following amendment.
       On page 43, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following: 
     Provides full obligation authority for operation lifesaver 
     and railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high speed 
     rail corridors.
       On page 43, line 13, strike ``(xi)'' and insert 
     ``(xii)''.--Facilitates the previous amendment.
       On page 44, strike line 6 and insert the following: 
     Provides an obligation limitation for administrative expenses 
     deducted under Section 104(a). Similar limitations are 
     included in annual appropriations Acts for the Federal 
     Highway Administration. The obligation limitation totals 
     $301,725,000 for fiscal year 1999; $302,055,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000; $303,480,000 for fiscal year 2001; $310,470,000 
     for fiscal year 2002; and $320,595,000 for fiscal year 
     2003.
       On page 85, line 10, strike ``sections 103 and'' and insert 
     ``section''.--Makes a technical correction to the section on 
     studies and reports. The reference to section 103 is stricken 
     from the list of sections for which the Secretary must 
     annually report rates of obligation. National Highway System 
     funds are not apportioned under section 103, but must be 
     tracked under this section as they are apportioned under 
     section 104 of title 23.
       Beginning on page 91, strike line 24 and all that follow 
     through page 92, line 4.--Strikes the definition for ``border 
     region,'' as this term is not used within S. 1173.
       On page 92, line 5, . . .
       On page 92, line 11, . . .
       On page 92, line 17, . . .
       On page 93, line 3, . . .
       On page 93, line 6, . . . Provides technical corrections 
     (renumbering) to facilitate the above amendment.
       On page 130, line 6, insert: Clarifies that Congestion 
     Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds are tied to 
     areas classified as marginal or worse for ozone or carbon 
     monoxide in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
       On page 159, line 21, strike ``selection'' and insert 
     ``bidding''.--Makes a technical correction to section 1225, 
     replacing the word ``selection'' with ``bidding,'' as the 
     term ``competitive bidding'' is a defined term in title 23, 
     United States Code.
       On page 159, line 22, before the period, insert: See 
     amendment description below--line 160, between lines 16 and 
     17.
       On page 160, line 16, strike the quotation marks and--
     Technical amendment to facilitate the following amendment.
       On page 160, between lines 16 and 17--Requires the States 
     that choose to use the design-build process to either use 
     procedure specified in State statute or selection procedures 
     in legislation already adopted by the U.S. Congress and 
     signed into law for use by civilian and military agencies as 
     part of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996, Public 
     Law 104-106. Section 4105 of the Act established uniform 
     Federal standards for the acquisition of design-build 
     contracts for the first time.
       On page 161, line 14, strike ``selection''.--Makes a 
     technical correction to section 1225, replacing the word 
     ``selection'' with ``competitive bidding,'' as the term 
     ``competitive bidding'' is a defined term in title 23, United 
     States Code.
       On page 219, line 13, strike ``authorized to be 
     appropriated'' and insert ``made available''.--Technical 
     change to make this section's language parallel to the rest 
     of the bill.
       On page 250, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following: 
     Clarifies that a metropolitan planning organization 
     designation shall remain in effect until that MPO is 
     redesignated.
       On page 290, line 24, strike ``agencies'' and insert 
     ``departments''.--Makes a technical correction to section 
     1701, replacing the word ``agencies'' with ``departments'', 
     as the term ``transportation department is a defined term in 
     title 23, United States Code.
       On page 294, lines 12 and 13 strike: Clarifies the 
     eligibility of INHS funds for use on Interstate highways.
       On page 340, line 4, strike ``subsection'' and
       On page 343, line 4, strike ``subsection'' and--Provides a 
     technical correction.
       On page 403, strike lines 11 through 13 and insert the 
     following: Provides language to clarify that the primary use 
     of funds under commercial vehicle intelligent transportation 
     system infrastructure shall include the improvement of 
     inspection and crash data electronic processing.
       On page 413, line 1, strike ``that'' and insert ``only if 
     the technologies''.--Provides clarifying language.
       On page 415, line 14, strike: Provides a reduction to 
     contract authority for the fiscal year 2002 from $110 million 
     to $109 million to stay within the Committee's allocation.


                Amendment No. 1723 to Amendment No. 1676

  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] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1723.

  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 5, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
     title $11,977,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $11,949,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1999, $11,922,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
     $11,950,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $12,242,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $12,659,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
     of which--
       On page 7, strike lines 16 through 20.
       On page 8, line 20, after ``139(a)'', insert the following: 
     ``(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1997)''.
       On page 9, line 16, after ``139(a)'', insert the following: 
     ``(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1997)''.
       On page 10, line 9, insert ``and for the purposes specified 
     in subparagraph (A),'' before ``in the ratio''.
       On page 43, line 12, strike ``and''.

[[Page S1502]]

       On page 43, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       ``(xi) amounts set aside under section 104(d) for operation 
     lifesaver and railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in 
     high speed rail corridors; and
       On page 43, line 13, strike ``(xi)'' and insert ``(xii)''.
       On page 44, strike line 6 and insert the following:
       (e) Limitations on Obligations for Administrative 
     Expenses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     total amount of all obligations under section 104(a) of title 
     23, United States Code, shall not exceed--
       (1) $301,725,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       (2) $302,055,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (3) $303,480,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (4) $310,470,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       (5) $320,595,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       (f) Applicability of Obligation Limitations.--
       On page 85, line 10, strike ``sections 103 and'' and insert 
     ``section''.
       Beginning on page 91, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through page 92, line 4.
       On page 92, line 5, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
       On page 92, line 11, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 92, line 17, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 93, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 93, line 6, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 130, line 6, insert ``and classified under section 
     181(a) or 186(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511(a), 
     7512(a))'' before ``or classified as''.
       On page 159, line 21, strike ``selection'' and insert 
     ``bidding''.
       On page 159, line 22, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``in accordance with subparagraph (C)''.
       On page 160, line 16, strike the quotation marks and the 
     following period.
       On page 160, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(C) Procedures that may be approved.--Under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary may approve, for use by a State, only 
     procedures that consist of--
       ``(i) formal design-build contracting procedures specified 
     in a State statute; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a State that does not have a statute 
     described in clause (i), the design-build selection 
     procedures authorized under section 303M of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     253m).''.
       On page 161, line 14, strike ``selection'' and insert 
     ``competitive bidding''.
       On page 219, line 13, strike ``authorized to be 
     appropriated'' and insert ``made available''.
       On page 250, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(6) Continuing designation.--A designation of a 
     metropolitan planning organization under this subsection or 
     any other provision of law shall remain in effect until the 
     metropolitan planning organization is redesignated under 
     paragraph (2).
       On page 290, line 24, strike ``agencies'' and insert 
     ``departments''.
       On page 294, lines 12 and 13, strike ``paragraphs (1) and 
     (3) of section 104(b)'' and insert ``section 104(b)(1)''.
       On page 340, line 8, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``section''.
       On page 343, line 4, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``section''.
       On page 403, strike lines 11 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) electronic processing of registration information, 
     driver licensing information, fuel tax information, 
     inspection and crash data, and other safety information; and
       On page 413, line 1, strike ``that'' and insert ``only if 
     the technologies''.
       On page 415, line 14, strike ``$110,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$109,000,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and they 
are, indeed, technical corrections. There is nothing here that is not 
technical. There are grammatical errors, spelling errors, et cetera. We 
agree the amendment should be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1723) 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have an amendment here on behalf of 
Senator DeWine. It is a repeat offenders amendment.
  This amendment would strengthen and clarify the repeat drunk-driving 
offenders section of the bill. The bill, as currently drafted, requires 
States to enact and support penalties for drunk drivers, who have a 
blood alcohol concentration of .15 or greater, and who have been 
convicted of a second or subsequent drunk-driving offense within 5 
years. The DeWine-Lautenberg amendment strikes the reference to .15 
blood alcohol concentration and allows the State law on blood alcohol 
concentration to determine what is a repeat offender. The amendment, 
therefore, clarifies that a person who is arrested for driving with a 
blood alcohol concentration level lower than .15 still may be 
classified as a repeat offender.
  Mr. President, I know there is a good deal of concern amongst our 
colleagues about these drunk-driving amendments and the penalties that 
occur. I will not seek to have this agreed to now. I will only file it. 
It will be my intention to call this amendment up Monday, thus, giving 
those who might have concerns an opportunity to review it. I think when 
they review it, they will find that it gives more power to the States 
than the underlying bill does. Nonetheless, because of the deep 
interest in this matter, I think it well for it to lie over.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. 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.


                Amendment No. 1725 To Amendment No. 1676

          (Purpose: To make technical amendments to the bill)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that makes 
a number of technical corrections or revisions to S. 1173, to correct 
certain grammatical errors, spelling errors, and incorrect references 
to the law. This amendment has been cleared by both sides. I 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] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1725 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       On page 8, lines 5 and 6, strike ``National Highway 
     System'' and insert ``Interstate and National Highway System 
     program''.
       On page 50, line 2, strike ``to the pay'' and insert ``to 
     pay''.
       On page 62, line 14, strike ``wildernessK'' and insert 
     ``wilderness''.
       On page 91, strike lines 3 and 4 and insert the following:
     able for use in a national park by this paragraph.
       ``(d) Rights-of-Way Across Federal Land.--
       On page 170, line 3, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 170, line 9, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 301, line 11, strike ``program''.
       On page 303, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (l) Public Transportation.--Section 142(a)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the the'' and 
     inserting ``the''.
       On page 303, line 22, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(m)''.
       On page 304, line 5, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(n)''.
       On page 304, line 13, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(o)''.
       On page 304, line 17, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(p)''.
       On page 357, line 1, strike ``Set aside'' and insert ``Set-
     aside''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me give you an idea just how technical 
this is. One of the provisions here is to strike ``wildernessK'' and 
insert ``wilderness'', page 62, line 14. That was just a typo. Another 
is to strike the words ``SET ASIDE'' and replace them with ``SET-
ASIDE''. That's the nature of this. This is a very technical amendment. 
I urge its adoption.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1725) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment NO. 1687

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while debating my amendment, amendment 
number 1687, to S. 1173, the ISTEA Reauthorization Act, on Wednesday 
March 4, I referred to five letters and entered them into the Record. 
Two of those letters were inadvertenly omitted from the Record.

[[Page S1503]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
           Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution 
           Control Officials,
                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air Wetlands, Private 
         Property, and Nuclear Safety, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the State and Territorial 
     Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the 
     Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials 
     (ALAPCO), we wish to express our support for a particular 
     provision of your proposed amendment to ISTEA legislation 
     that calls for full federal funding for fine particulate 
     matter (PM2.5) air monitoring.
       STAPPA and ALAPCO are the national associations of state 
     and local air quality agencies in the states and territories 
     and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country. The 
     members of STAPPA and ALAPCO have primary responsibility for 
     implementing our nation's air pollution control laws and 
     regulations. As such, we believe it is essential that EPA 
     provide full funding for the PM2.5 monitoring 
     network, as the agency has indicated it would.
       In its final PM2.5 monitoring regulation (July 
     18, 1997), EPA estimated that $98.3 million is needed to 
     deploy a national PM2.5 monitoring system 
     comprising 1,500 sites (including the purchase of equipment 
     and the costs of operating and maintaining the system and 
     analyzing data). On many occasions, the agency committed to 
     providing full funding over a two-year period for this new 
     program and indicated that this would be new money. 
     Unfortunately, this has not happened.
       In FY 1997, EPA allocated $2.7 million for state and local 
     air grants for PM2.5 monitoring activities. In FY 
     1998, EPA earmarked $35.6 million for those activities but, 
     rather than providing full funding, the allocation included 
     only $28.7 million in new money, while the remaining $6.9 
     million was diverted from other, non-PM2.5 
     monitoring activities that state and local agencies must 
     perform. The proposed FY 1999 budget earmarks $50.7 million 
     for the PM2.5 monitoring network. However, this 
     includes only $43.9 million in new funds for PM2.5 
     monitoring activities and again proposes to reprogram funds--
     $6.8 million--away from other extremely important and grossly 
     underfunded state and local air program activities. Thus, 
     instead of providing $98.3 million over two years to fund the 
     PM2.5 monitoring effort, EPA has in fact only 
     allocated $75.3 million in new money, which falls $23 million 
     short of the amount EPA has repeatedly stated is needed and 
     would be provided. Although state and local air agencies 
     remain concerned that $98.3 million may not be sufficient to 
     fully fund the PM2.5 monitoring network, we 
     commend your effort to ensure that EPA at least fulfills its 
     commitment.
       While we are not commenting on any other provisions of your 
     amendment, we are very pleased with the component of it that 
     calls for full funding under Section 103 of the Clean Air Act 
     for PM2.5 monitoring. Moreover, we applaud that 
     the amendment both restores to state and local air grants 
     under Section 105 of the Clean Air Act the $13.7 million that 
     EPA has inappropriately diverted from other important 
     underfunded state and local air quality activities and 
     ensures that the balance of the funds EPA estimated were 
     necessary for the complete fine PM2.5 monitoring 
     network is provided with additional monies.
       Thank you again for your concern about this important 
     issue. Please contact us if we can answer any questions or 
     provide additional information.
           Sincerely,
     Timothy J. Method,
       President of STAPPA.
     Bruce S. Andersen,
       President of ALAPCO.
                                  ____

                                                     American Farm


                                            Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 1998.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: Senator James Inhofe will be 
     introducing an amendment to the Senate Highway Bill (ISTEA) 
     on Tuesday, March 2, 1998. The amendment is offered to ISTEA 
     in order to avoid the risk of states' losing highway funds as 
     a sanction under the Clean Air Act for failure to demonstrate 
     attainment. It is also designed to ensure that EPA provides 
     states with the necessary funding to construct and operate a 
     new nationwide PM 2.5 monitoring network that the EPA 
     Administrator says is needed without states having to take 
     funds away from other important state programs.
       Further, the amendment will ensure that states collect 
     three full years of fine particulate monitoring data, which 
     the President has called for, before deciding which areas of 
     the country will be subject to new stringent requirements.
       The agriculture community continues to be concerned over 
     the accuracy of EPA's fine particulate measurements, 
     especially in regard to agriculture emissions. Testimony has 
     been given in both the Senate and House Agriculture 
     Committees indicating concern that agriculture would be 
     ``misregulated'' due to inaccurate fine particulate 
     measurements. This amendment will allow a comparison of EPA's 
     approved method used to measure fine particulate and the new 
     monitors to find if both adequately eliminate those particles 
     that are larger than 2.5 micrograms in diameter.
       The Inhofe amendment will provide states, small business, 
     agriculture and consumers greater certainty that control 
     strategies for particulate matter compliance are based on 
     reliable data. The amendment is consistent with the timelines 
     set forth in the President's Memorandum on Implementation and 
     is a moderate, common sense approach to making sure the 
     necessary PM 2.5 monitoring data is available to EPA in order 
     to make scientifically sound decisions regarding state 
     compliance designations.
       Farm Bureau urges you to vote for the Inhofe amendment to 
     ISTEA when it comes to the floor for a vote on Tuesday.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dean Kleckner,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up 
to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 1730 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have Senators interested on the 
floor.
  Once again, I regret having to address the Senate regarding the lack 
of cooperation that we have been getting on the part of some Members 
with respect to trying to find a way to bring the highway bill to a 
close. We need to do that. I think Senators have had enough time to 
analyze what is in the bill and offer amendments during the week. We 
debated it last year, and even with the cloture vote, we still would 
have a considerable amount of time next week to consider it and have 
relevant amendments in order.
  Senator Daschle, for instance, this morning said:

       This is the time to move this legislation forward. I am 
     hopeful that we can have a good debate on other amendments on 
     Monday and have that vote on cloture on Monday night so that 
     we can complete our work some time by the middle of the week.

  That is Senator Daschle's comments. I share the sentiment that he 
expressed and thought all Members were in agreement with regard to the 
fact that the Senate needs to complete action on this bill as soon as 
possible in order to go to other pending bills.
  In order to achieve that goal, a successful cloture vote must occur 
in order for the managers to ascertain their remaining work load, what 
amendments they will have to deal with, and know what time they are 
talking about.
  As I discussed with the minority leader, and with Senator Harkin, 
there are two additional issues, however, that the Senate must consider 
prior to the passage that are vital to the bill. Those are the Banking 
Committee transit title and the Finance Committee title. It was my 
understanding we would make other arrangements for consideration of 
those two issues outside the parameters of rule XXII.
  With that in mind, I now propound a unanimous-consent request that is 
necessary to do that. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
invoking of cloture on the Chafee substitute the Banking Committee 
title and the Finance Committee title, and relevant amendments thereto, 
still be in order.

[[Page S1504]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree with 
our key distinguished majority leader that action needs to be taken on 
this bill. There are many of us who have sought to learn the details in 
the amendment which was filed by the floor managers. We just got that 
amendment yesterday. I believe it is a complicated amendment. The 
details, the analysis came in yesterday.
  Many of us of the donor State position, for instance, want very much 
to try to achieve greater fairness in this bill. We are not trying to 
hold up the bill. We are trying to offer amendments to this bill that 
make it fairer from the perspective of States that, over the decades, 
have provided so much more funding to the highway program than has been 
received back by those States. We want that opportunity to seek greater 
fairness.
  The managers have been talking to us about some possibilities that 
would be foreclosed by a cloture vote. Relevant amendments that are not 
technically germane would be foreclosed. This unanimous consent 
agreement only protects certain items postcloture that are relevant. 
Clearly, the two committee provisions which the majority leader talks 
about need to be considered as part of this bill, but so do other 
relevant provisions which are very important to States that feel they 
have not gotten a fair opportunity. So because it treats differently 
relevant amendments, postcloture and the relevant amendments that are 
so important to donor States, for instance, which are not technically 
germane are not treated in the same way in this unanimous consent 
agreement as are the ones that are specified, I must reluctantly 
object.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the comments of the 
Senator from Michigan, first of all, I don't think you can find a 
Senator more sympathetic to donor States' concerns and desires than 
this Senator. My State has been very badly underfunded and mistreated 
over many, many years on a lot of things but on the highway trust fund 
formula, in particular.
  We have been getting much less than an 85 percent return on the 
dollar here. We are the poorest State in the Nation, a big State, so 
don't get me started on donor States. I am sympathetic with what the 
Senator is saying.
  I know he will continue to work with the chairman and the ranking 
member to see if there is a way to work this out without causing a 
blowout on the other side. This is a very delicately balanced bill. 
None of us is totally 100 percent happy with it. There are a number of 
things that came out of the committee that I just detest, but I realize 
there has to be a balance. There has to be a blend between regions of 
the country--big States, small States, donor States, donee--and I think 
they have done about as good as they could to this point.
  I know you will work with Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus to see if 
your concerns can be worked out, but also I think that most of the 
amendments that you might want to offer to help solve your problem 
really would be available. Now, maybe not every one that you can think 
of--and I know you don't want to give up anything, but I think you also 
understand, as the majority leader, this tends to make people focus. We 
kind of gloated all week; the managers are doing the best they can and 
they made some good progress. The Senate really hasn't been paying 
attention. Just now they are beginning to say, ``Wait, what does this 
mean, what exactly do I get--90.07 or do I get 91.2 cents back on a 
dollar?'' So, by doing what I have done, this tends to make people say, 
OK, the train is leaving. It also limits the debate. If we get cloture, 
in 30 hours we are finished with this bill. So I understand what you 
are doing, and I hope you understand what I am doing. Try to work it 
out if you can.

  I urge all Senators to vote for cloture so we can begin to move 
toward bringing this to closure. I think it will put pressure on the 
other body to act. Remember, funds are going to be running out on May 
1. I have made extra efforts and have met with a lot of Senators to try 
to get this bill done because I don't want to be blamed when May 1 
comes. I don't think anybody would want to do that. We better find a 
way to make this happen.
  The cloture vote will occur at 5:30 on Monday. I hope Senators will 
vote for cloture. I will continue to try to obtain a consent that 
allows the Senate to consider these two issues in a fair and orderly 
fashion. And, certainly, on Monday when we are back, we will get right 
back to this and see if we can move it along.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the majority leader will yield, I want to assure him 
that the so-called ``donor States''--at least, I think I speak for many 
of those Senators--have been very focused indeed for quite a long time 
on this issue. It just didn't arise after cloture was filed today. As 
the majority leader knows, we have worked very hard with the managers. 
Once we got the analysis of their amendment, we agreed that that 
amendment would be added as original text. The analysis came in less 
than 24 hours ago.
  I know all the States in the Union feel that they want to do better. 
We all want a bill. Everybody wants a bill. We are determined to get a 
bill. Those of us who live in northern States surely would like it 
before May 1 because we are the ones that a tardy approval of the bill 
will hurt in terms of getting contracts signed. I know all of my 
colleagues, whether we are donor States or donee States, will work with 
the managers to try to come up with something over the weekend if 
possible.
  I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was in a meeting and I heard a 
unanimous consent request that I didn't quite understand. Was that 
granted?
  Mr. LOTT. The unanimous consent request was objected to with regard 
to the Banking and Finance Committee provisions.
  Mr. STEVENS. The leader has already set a cloture vote for when?
  Mr. LOTT. It is 5:30 on Monday.
  Mr. STEVENS. What does that do to the banking provision then? Will 
everything in the banking amendment then have to be germane?
  Mr. LOTT. Unless we get permission for the Banking and Finance 
Committee provisions to be allowed, and that would be my intent. But 
Senators who have some concerns with it--with the formula, really, the 
donor States, see this as a way, speaking candidly, to keep a little 
pressure on this whole issue. Hopefully, we can work their concerns 
out, and then we would be able to get permission to add the Banking and 
Finance Committee provisions at that point. But that might be Wednesday 
of next week.
  Mr. STEVENS. I might say to the leader, I am one of those who is 
disturbed over this ``donor'' or ``donee'' designation. As I said the 
other day, my State is in neither circumstance because we don't have 
the roads yet. I don't know what this does to us as far as the process 
is concerned.
  May I inquire, before this cloture vote, will we have a breakdown and 
analysis of the bill on what each State would be entitled to? I have 
been trying to get that, and I have seen several different versions of 
what each State is entitled to under the bill. But beyond that, I have 
some questions about what happens to States that don't have roads.
  We have the situation in our State where we are trying to build 
roads. This bill basically deals with the improvement of existing 
roads. I think this donor/donee thing sort of means maybe we ought to 
have a referendum to see whether the State of Alaska can become 
independent rather than Puerto Rico, because we would be much better 
off with the money we send to the Treasury. We send money to the 
Treasury in terms of the revenue from 25 percent of the oil that is 
produced in the United States. We try to get some of that back in terms 
of highways and find out we can't do it. I find that it's getting a 
little serious, as far as we are concerned.
  Mr. Leader, I looked, and we have increased the number of miles of 
roads in our State by 1,100 miles in 40 years. But we had none to start 
with. Alaska is one-fifth the size of the United States. I am afraid 
what this means, suddenly, is that we are shut out again for another 6 
years. The leader may remember that I had a little bit of an argument 5 
years ago on this. We are right back there again. I am at a loss as to 
what this means to us.
  Mr. LOTT. In answer to the Senator's question, I might say that I 
believe an

[[Page S1505]]

analysis would be available. I have learned that you can get two 
different lists, and they might sometimes show a little different 
analysis or interpretation than what is in the bill.
  Would the chairman of the committee like to respond?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, we certainly have tables and charts that will show 
what Alaska got under ISTEA I, what Alaska gets under ISTEA II, what 
Alaska gets under ISTEA II with the added money in the so-called Chafee 
amendment, what those total dollars are, what the total dollars are in 
ISTEA II, as amended, compared to ISTEA I. The percentage of the total 
moneys that are given out, I think, are pretty elaborate--the figures 
that we have provided. It isn't anything new.
  Mr. STEVENS. What I am disturbed about is this concept of 91 percent 
of the money paid into the Treasury on the gas tax will be returned to 
each State. How about 91 percent of the money paid into the Treasury 
from any oil-producing State? We send more money to the Treasury every 
day than any one of these donor States do. We are not getting it back 
and we are not getting any roads. I am really getting disturbed.
  I must say, Leader, I asked to be notified so I could come and deal 
with the objection. I understand there is nothing to object to over the 
cloture vote. But somehow or other, we have to find some way to 
recognize the plight of States that do not have revenue going into the 
gas tax fund because they don't have roads. But we are sending more 
money to the Federal Treasury than any State in the Union with regard 
to resource production. How about some of that coming back to us? Let 
us build highways with part of our own tax revenues. Somehow, that has 
to be worked out. I don't want to be at cross purposes with the leader, 
but I shall have to vote against cloture once again.
  I don't like to do that with the leadership, but it seems to me that 
there ought to be some way to work out this donor/donee business with 
relationship to how much money is the State paying into the Treasury 
from its activities.
  These are State lands, Mr. President. We own the lands that the oil 
is produced from. We send 25 percent of the domestically produced oil 
to the United States. We could sell it in the world market for a lot 
more money. But it is getting to be a great problem to me to figure out 
how to deal with the future for my State. If we can't build roads, we 
are no longer going to be able to get subsidies for mail 
transportation, and we have many more of our communities becoming 
totally isolated now because of the Federal policies that forbid us 
from building roads across Federal lands in the first place.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me say, Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time, I 
certainly understand what the Senator is saying. I am sympathetic to 
his concerns. Certainly, he is not getting into cross purposes with me. 
I am trying to bring this to a conclusion. I understand why he will 
vote the way he will. By the way, if you want to keep more of that oil 
and gas revenue in Alaska, put me down, I will be with you. We need to 
find more ways to leave more money with the people in the States 
anyway.
  Mr. STEVENS. The leader has always been with us. But I have to find a 
way out of this hole we are in right now, both on building ferries and 
building roads. I don't have that answer yet. I will be here again and 
again, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________