[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 23 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1554-S1560]
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.


                Amendment No. 1718 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the 
   amounts made available under the bill for fiscal year 1998 by the 
 amounts made available under the Surface Transportation Extension Act 
                                of 1997)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last Friday, I sent to the desk an 
amendment numbered 1718. I ask to call up that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1718 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment, as I said, that I 
sent to the desk last Friday. It would require the Secretary of 
Transportation to reduce the amounts made available under the so-called 
ISTEA Act for fiscal year 1998 by the amounts made available under the 
Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997, the so-called 6-month 
extension.
  Last year, Mr. President, as you recall, in the latter part of the 
calendar year, around October, the Senate passed a 6-month extension of 
the ISTEA legislation which allowed States to use their unobligated 
balances to fund eligible transportation projects. It also allocated an 
additional $5.5 billion in new money to the States. The Senate agreed 
to provide that $5.5 billion on the condition that the amounts 
allocated to the States under the ISTEA II legislation in fiscal year 
1998 would be reduced by the amount each State received for the 6-month 
extension. In other words, under the legislation we are now 
considering, Mr. President, we provide money for the entire fiscal year 
of 1998.
  What this amendment would do is say the amounts we previously gave 
the States in October for this fiscal year will be deducted from the 
total amount that we provide for the entire fiscal year for them. By 
the way, Mr. President, the amounts would be allocated to each of the 
categories for which they had received that amount previously. 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 for the 6-month extension.
  There are several reasons why this 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. If this reduction is not required 
and agreed to, the States would receive one and one-half times as much 
as they should for 1998 and our bill would be subject to a point of 
order. Second, the 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 long and hard to update this formula to make it as fair as 
possible.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is essentially a bookkeeping 
amendment to prevent double counting and to make sure that moneys 
States do receive under the new ISTEA highway program are according to 
the new formula rather than the old formula. It is really very 
straightforward--to prevent double counting.
  There is no reason why this should not pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1718) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1841 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 1841 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment makes several technical 
clarifying and noncontroversial changes to the underlying legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge adoption. These are truly technical 
amendments, clarifying amendments, truly noncontroversial. It should 
pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1841) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, we are waiting for those who are 
going to present the Finance Committee amendment, which I hope will be 
soon.
  Pending that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1555]]

  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 ojbection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wonder if I could engage the 
distinguished chairman of our committee in a colloquy about the status 
of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask the chairman: Isn't it true that we are pretty 
much wrapped up with our bill, but we are waiting on two major 
amendments? They are from two other committees, and we are waiting for 
those committees to come to the floor and offer their amendments so we 
can get them agreed to and then get on with this bill and get this bill 
off the floor so we can, hopefully following the House action, have a 
bill to go to conference.
  Isn't it true that we are about wrapped up here but we waiting on two 
committees?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, the 
ranking member of the committee, that he is exactly right. There are 
two big amendments out there, but neither of them have anything to do 
with our committee. One is from the Finance Committee dealing with the 
tax portions of this legislation, and the other from the Banking 
Committee dealing with the mass transit portions of this legislation. 
But both of those are in other committees.
  So we have been very anxious. The Finance Committee chairman and 
others have indicated that they are prepared to come to the floor. We 
started this at 1 p.m., and we keep hoping that they will come. We are 
losing valuable time, Mr. President. Obviously, both of us and all 
members of the committee want to finish this legislation. There are 
several hundred amendments still out there, but I have reason to 
believe very few of those are actually going to be presented.
  So, we could really make tremendous progress if we could dispose of 
those two major amendments--the one from the Banking Committee and the 
one from the Finance Committee, which we are expecting to have 
presented momentarily.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the chairman, also, is it his understanding that 
the Finance Committee is ready with its amendment, that it has been 
drafted, but for some reason they just do not come over to the floor 
and offer it?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is exactly right. That is my understanding. 
My understanding is they are ready to go.
  One of the most famous reports that one hears in the Senate is, so 
and so ``is on his way.'' ``On his way'' can mean a lot of things. It 
can mean circling Ronald Reagan Airport preparing to land, or it could 
just mean that he has gotten on the elevator and will be here within 45 
seconds. So we have heard reports that the Finance Committee 
representatives who are going to present that amendment are on their 
way. Again, I am not sure what that exactly means.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished chairman of 
our committee, isn't it true that the Finance Committee amendment is 
very important to this bill because that is the amendment which will 
extend the current gasoline tax that is going to transfer the funds 
into the trust fund and, therefore, to other trust fund States? So we 
definitely need to get this Finance Committee amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I say to the distinguished Senator that he is absolutely 
right. Without the money, this bill isn't going to amount to much. So 
we treat the members of the Finance Committee and the chairman with 
great deference since he provides the wherewithal to make this whole 
program fly.
  The amendment they will present will extend the highway trust fund 
taxes for 6 years. It will extend the highway trust fund expenditure 
authority for 6 years. It creates a 15-project pilot program dealing 
with tax-exempt bonds for private-public partnerships. It has a whole 
series of provisions that have been worked out in the Finance 
Committee. It is crucial to this legislation.

  So once we get that dealt with, which I certainly hope won't take 
long, we can then move on to the Banking Committee amendment.
  I have just heard through the grapevine that the Banking Committee 
amendment, which deals with mass transit, will be ready tomorrow. But, 
as everyone knows, there is a cloture vote coming up at 5 or 5:30. It 
would seem to me that they should get that Banking Committee amendment 
in, or there will be all kinds of problems should cloture be invoked 
since that would not be germane to the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the chairman again, where does 
he think the Finance Committee amendment is? Here it is, 2:30 in the 
afternoon.
  Mr. CHAFEE. They are on their way. I keep looking toward that door 
expecting that door to swing open.
  Mr. BAUCUS. My office called, and there is no answer. They are out to 
lunch. The lunch hour, I am sure, is over by 2:30. I hope the Finance 
Committee comes over quickly so that we get their amendment offered.
  I also ask the chairman--there is no reason why we even have to take 
the Banking Committee amendment. It seems to this Senator that we can 
just as soon go to third reading, and, if the Banking Committee does 
not come over with its amendment by tomorrow or the next day, then 
there is no transit amendment to the bill. There will be other 
opportunities for them to bring up their transit amendment sometime 
later this year, I would think. We don't have to wait. We don't have to 
have the transit amendment in this bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have to be cautious about allying myself 
with those comments since my State gets something out of the transit 
legislation. It is very important. We have one transit system within 
our State.
  So I am very anxious to see that transit measure passed--the so-
called ``banking amendment.'' So, I do not want to foreclose anybody. 
But I urge the managers of that legislation, as well as others who have 
amendments which they might want to present, to come on over. The store 
is open for business. Now is the time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I might also note that last week when we 
were working out an arrangement to allocate dollars in the Byrd-Gramm-
Warner-Baucus amendment the mass transit folks were going berserk; they 
were all upset that they were not ``taken care of''.
  As we all know, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
and the chairman of the Banking Committee and others have reached an 
agreement of the amounts that will be in the transit title. So there is 
no reason why they can't quickly put this bill together with the 
amounts that are contained in that agreement and offer their amendment. 
I hope they will do that very quickly.
  Again, we are here waiting for the Finance Committee. We are here 
waiting for the Banking Committee. Once those two committees come over 
with their major amendments to different titles to this bill, we will 
by and large be able to pass this bill and urge the House to take up 
and pass their ISTEA bill so we can meet the deadline of April 30. A 
lot can slip between now and April 30--passage here and in the House, 
then conference, and we have to have all of that done by April 30, and 
signed by the President by that same date so we don't have to worry 
about the possibility of another extension, which I certainly don't 
want, and so that States can rest assured that the highway program is 
in place. We have to move here. I hope the Finance Committee and the 
Banking Committee will help us out.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I totally agree. I think once we dispose 
of those two big amendments, we can really wrap this thing up. It is 
dangerous to make predictions around here.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Don't.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All right. I will not. Anyway, I think we can do it 
rather soon. I know the majority leader is very anxious to get this 
legislation completed. I share that interest and concern with him.
  So, while we wait upon the Finance Committee representatives, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1556]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1724 To Amendment No. 1676

 (Pending: To specify further penalties and the use of withheld funds 
 under the section relating to minimum penalties for repeat offenders 
     for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 1724, which 
I submitted last Friday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. DeWine, 
     for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Baucus, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1724 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       Beginning on page 225, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 227, line 13, and insert the following:
       ``(5) Repeat intoxicated driver law.--The term `repeat 
     intoxicated driver law' means a State law that provides, as a 
     minimum penalty, that an individual convicted of a second or 
     subsequent offense for driving while intoxicated or driving 
     under the influence after a previous conviction for that 
     offense shall--
       ``(A) receive a driver's license suspension for not less 
     than 1 year;
       ``(B) be subject to the impoundment or immobilization of 
     each of the individual's motor vehicles or the installation 
     of an ignition interlock system on each of the motor 
     vehicles;
       ``(C) receive an assessment of the individual's degree of 
     abuse of alcohol and treatment as appropriate; and
       ``(D) receive--
       ``(i) in the case of the second offense--

       ``(I) an assignment of not less than 30 days of community 
     service; or
       ``(II) not less than 5 days of imprisonment; and

       ``(ii) in the case of the third or subsequent offense--

       ``(I) an assignment of not less than 60 days of community 
     service; or
       ``(II) not less than 10 days of imprisonment.

       ``(b) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) Fiscal years 2001 and 2002.--
       ``(A) In general.--On October 1, 2000, and October 1, 2001, 
     if a State has not enacted or is not enforcing a repeat 
     intoxicated driver law, the Secretary shall transfer an 
     amount equal to 1\1/2\ percent of the funds apportioned to 
     the State on that date under paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
     section 104(b) to the apportionment of the State under 
     section 402--
       ``(i) to be used for alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures; or
       ``(ii) to be directed to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies for enforcement of laws prohibiting driving while 
     intoxicated or driving under the influence and other related 
     laws (including regulations), including the purchase of 
     equipment, the training of officers, and the use of 
     additional personnel for specific alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures, dedicated to enforcement of the laws 
     (including regulations).
       ``(B) Derivation of amount to be transferred.--An amount 
     transferred under subparagraph (A) may be derived--
       ``(i) from the apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(1);
       ``(ii) from the apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(3); or
       ``(iii) partially from the apportionment of the State under 
     section 104(b)(1) and partially from the apportionment of the 
     State under section 104(b)(3).
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years thereafter.--
       ``(A) In general.--On October 1, 2002, and each October 1 
     thereafter, if a State has not enacted or is not enforcing a 
     repeat intoxicated driver law, the Secretary shall transfer 3 
     percent of the funds apportioned to the State on that date 
     under each of paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402--
       ``(i) to be used for alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures; or
       ``(ii) to be directed to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies for enforcement of laws prohibiting driving while 
     intoxicated or driving under the influence and other related 
     laws (including regulations), including the purchase of 
     equipment, the training of officers, and the use of 
     additional personnel for specific alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures, dedicated to enforcement of the laws 
     (including regulations).
       ``(B) Derivation of amount to be transferred.--An amount 
     transferred under subparagraph (A) may be derived--
       ``(i) from the apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(1);
       ``(ii) from the apportionment of the State under section 
     104(b)(3); or
       ``(iii) partially from the apportionment of the State under 
     section 104(b)(1) and partially from the apportionment of the 
     State under section 104(b)(3).

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, this is what we might call a repeat 
offenders amendment. I filed it last Friday so that our Members would 
have a chance, and their staffs, to look at it and consider it. The 
amendment would strengthen and clarify the repeat drunk driving 
offenders section of the bill; that is, the underlying bill.
  The bill, as currently drafted, requires States to act and support 
penalties for drunk drivers who have a blood alcohol concentration of 
.15 or greater. And two things have to occur--the drunk driver is 
arrested, has a blood alcohol content of .15 or greater, and has been 
convicted of a second or third or more drunk driving offense within 5 
years.
  This amendment, of which Senator DeWine is the lead sponsor, is 
cosponsored by Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, 
Senator Baucus, and Senator Dorgan. And what it does, it strikes the 
reference to the .15 blood alcohol concentration and lets the State law 
on blood alcohol concentration 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, such 
as .08 or .10, still may be classified as a repeat offender if the 
State so chooses. So, in essence, Madam President, what this amendment 
does, instead of our setting it at a Federal level, we let the States 
set the level for the second or greater offense that has occurred 
within the 5 years.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I support this amendment. There are no 
objections I am aware of on our side.
  A critical feature is State discretion. The States will have the 
authority, have the discretion, under this amendment, to change the 
alcohol content to a level that they so choose. That is, this amendment 
does not prescribe specifically what the alcohol content should be with 
respect to the repeat offender law. And because the States have that 
discretion, that choice, I support the amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, on March 4 the Senate voted in favor 
of an amendment to ISTEA that would make .08 BAC for drunk drivers the 
law of the land. I voted for this amendment and was an original co-
sponsor of the bill introduced last year by Senators Lautenberg and 
DeWine to establish .08 BAC as a national standard.
  Today I stand in support of a related amendment sponsored by Senators 
Lautenberg and DeWine that would establish national minimum penalties 
for repeat drunk driving offenders. Like the .08 BAC amendment, this 
amendment is supported by senators from both sides of the aisle. Having 
agreed upon a clear and reasonable standard for drunk driving, we need 
to take firm steps that stop repeat offenders and that discourage 
others from drinking and driving.
  The terrible price we pay as a society for drunk driving warrants 
firm measures to address the repeat offender problem. In 1996, over 
17,000 Americans lost their lives in car accidents when a driver had 
been drinking alcohol. These Americans died in every state and they 
come from all walks of life. Many thousand more Americans suffer severe 
injuries in alcohol-related car accidents and families are devastated. 
Experts tell us that repeat offenders account for a disproportionate 
part of these drunk driving accidents.
  This amendment provides states with necessary flexibility and a 
number of important tools with which to combat the repeat offender 
problem. It includes minimum sentencing and license revocation. It 
allows states to implement vehicle impoundment or restrictions on 
vehicle use. Punitive actions are only part of what is necessary. The 
amendment also provides for alcohol assessment and appropriate 
treatment for repeat offenders to address the underlying problems that 
lead to drunk driving. These carefully considered steps to fight repeat 
offender drunk driving need to be implemented to protect all Americans.
  Drinking and driving once is inexcusable. Drinking and driving a 
second or third time simply cannot be tolerated. Madam President, I 
support the Lautenberg and DeWine repeat offender amendment to ISTEA.

[[Page S1557]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to express my support for 
Senator Mike DeWine's amendment that would establish minimum standards 
of punishment and treatment for repeat offenders of drunk driving. 
These standards will send a strong message that repeated convictions 
for drinking and driving will not be tolerated.
  We have heard, over the past few days, the extent of the national 
scourge that is drunk driving in our country. Let me remind you, in 
1996, 41,907 people were killed in highway crashes. Another three 
million were injured. These crashes cost society $150 billion every 
year. Forty-one percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
  In 1996, 17,126 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. That 
year, more people were killed in alcohol related crashes than were 
killed in the worst year of the Vietnam War, a war that tore this 
country apart.
  Driving While Intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent 
crimes in this country. In 1994, more people were arrested for DWI--1.5 
million--than for any other reported criminal activity including 
larceny or theft. We need to start treating this epidemic.
  A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the 
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue, 
it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of 
DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One out of eight drunk drivers 
in a fatal crash has had a DWI conviction in the past three years. The 
danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that 
drivers with prior DWI convictions are over represented in fatal 
crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a 
fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the 
risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases 
with each DWI arrest.
  According to the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, about 
2,300 innocent victims are killed each year due to so-called persistent 
drinking drivers, or those who repeatedly drive after drinking. 
Annually, persistent drinking drivers represent an estimated 65 percent 
of fatally injured drinking drivers and 15 to 20 percent of all injured 
drivers. This translates into 7,000 dead drivers and 250,000 injured 
drivers each year. And, Mr. President, persistent drinking drivers cost 
the economy $1.5 billion each year in enforcement and court costs and 
$45 billion each year in crashes.
  One study in California demonstrated the extent of this problem over 
the long-term. It found that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI 
in California in 1980 were convicted again of DWI within the next ten 
years.
  Madam President, when we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk 
about it in statistical terms. But there are real people attached to 
those statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, 
New Jersey, full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk 
driver while he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell 
was exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his 
kindness and caring. At one point Matt dreamed of being a baseball 
player, but as he matured he knew he wanted to be a missionary. His 
dream became living a life of helping others. But this dream never 
materialized. Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his 
car while passing another vehicle. Hyer should not have been on the 
road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk. 
Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times, 
though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey 
in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina License just two 
years later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A 
system which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too 
late in responding.
  Madam President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of 
the other Matthew Hammells who are taken from us too early, but it is 
now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. I 
introduced a bill one year ago that I named in his honor the ``Deadly 
Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act.'' That bill 
required states to adopt a ``three strikes and you're out'' law that 
took away the driver's license.
  While I introduced that bill, I am pleased to say that the amendment 
proposed by Senator DeWine is a positive step toward combating this 
terrible epidemic. The amendment before us provides a comprehensive 
approach toward reducing repeated drinking and driving.
  First, the amendment recognizes that the large percentage of DWI 
arrestees, from 40 to 80 percent of all offenders, are alcohol 
dependent, by requiring alcohol assessment and treatment, as necessary, 
after the second and each subsequent offense. Experts suggest that 
combining treatment and legal sanctions will produce the largest 
benefit to traffic safety. It makes sense.
  Second, the proposal requires states to revoke a driver's license for 
one year after the second and each subsequent offense. Most states 
already require license suspensions after the first and subsequent 
offense, and states have found that the threat of taking away one's 
license has been very effective deterrent for the general population. 
However, studies have also found that for the chronic drinking driver, 
license suspensions have very little effect--upwards of 80 percent of 
drinking drivers continue to drink and drive after license suspension.
  That's why this amendment seeks to employ other methods that will 
make it difficult for the repeat offender to drive when he or she is 
drunk, or to drive at all. The amendment requires that, after the 
second and subsequent offense, the person is subject to vehicle 
impoundment or immobilization, or the installation of an ignition 
interlock device on the car. These tools have found to be extremely 
effective in reducing recidivism of drunk driving. After the City of 
Portland, Oregon adopted an ordinance to take cars away from repeat 
offenders, the City saw a 42 percent decrease in drunk driving 
fatalities, and a recidivism rate of only four percent for offenders 
whose cars had been seized.
  Ignition interlock devices are those that are locked into a repeat 
offender's car. Before the person can drive, he or she must blow into 
the device, and if the device registers more than .02 BAC--or zero 
tolerance--the car will not turn on. The repeat offender usually is 
responsible for paying the costs of the device, which is about two 
dollars a day. Over 35 states have passed some form of legislation that 
uses ignition interlock devices to combat repeat offenders. According 
to the NCADD, ignition interlock programs used in several states have 
reduced recidivism to about one percent while the program is in effect.
  Finally, the amendment requires states to adopt laws if they have not 
already, mandating jail time or community service for the second (five 
days in jail or 30 days community service) and subsequent (ten days in 
jail or 60 days community service) offense. Repeat offenders must know 
the severity of their crime.
  States are given three years to adopt laws that have, at a minimum, 
these provisions. States that fail to do so must transfer one and one-
half percent of their highway construction funds in the fourth year, 
and three percent in the fifth year, to their Section 402 impaired 
driving program, or to the state police, to assist in enforcing drunk 
driving laws.
  The NCADD has proposed strategies to deal with the persistent 
drinking driver. I am pleased to say that this amendment incorporates 
almost all of those strategies. License revocation. Vehicle 
immobilization or impoundment. Imposition of an ignition interlock 
device. Alcohol assessment and treatment. Another strategy the NCADD 
proposes to deal with the persistent drinking driver is to reduce the 
legal BAC limit to .08 BAC for adults, because studies have shown that 
.08 BAC laws have reduced drunk driving at even higher BACs. As we all 
know, the Senate approved that amendment last week.
  Madam President, I want to commend Senator DeWine and Senator Warner 
on their effective leadership on behalf of this issue. The programs 
that we have passed--the .08 BAC amendment, Senator Dorgan's open-
container amendment, and this repeat offender amendment--create a 
comprehensive program that when in place, will show measurable effects. 
We will

[[Page S1558]]

see a reduction of alcohol-related crashes. Fewer families will face 
the crippling grief of a loved one lost to drunk driving.
  This amendment matters. I hope my colleagues will join us in 
supporting this comprehensive amendment that will save lives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate? If there is no 
further debate, the question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 
1724.
  The amendment (No. 1724) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam 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. Madam 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. 1922 to Amendment No. 1676

   (Purpose: To codify the transportation infrastructure finance and 
                         innovation provisions)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam 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 and 
     Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1922 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, this is a package of amendments to the 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, so-called 
TIFIA. These include two types of changes. First, they make technical 
and noncontroversial changes to the TIFIA subchapter. The majority were 
recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation to improve and 
clarify provisions under this act.
  Second, this package establishes a fee for those States that use the 
Federal credit assistance to fund transportation projects under so-
called TIFIA. This fee is necessary to offset the revenue loss that the 
Joint Committee on Taxation estimated will result in the program. It is 
important to note we have confirmation from the Congressional Budget 
Office that this fee will address the loss.
  I am pleased that TIFIA was included in the underlying bill, S. 1173, 
as it will assist the Nation in funding the gap between transportation 
resources and needs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we accept the amendment. The chairman 
has articulated the reasons. They are good reasons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1922) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam 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. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Vitiation of Action and Withdrawal of Amendment No. 1310

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is a request from the Republican 
leader. I understand it is joined in by the Democratic leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senate action on amendment No. 1310 be 
vitiated, and I further ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1310) was withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, seeing no Senator seeking recognition, 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. ROBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I rise to address a problem that threatens 
to overwhelm the Nation's Capital and surrounding jurisdictions: 
traffic. As our colleagues know, driving in the greater Washington area 
can raise your blood pressure and test your patience. Our regional 
traffic jam, which is rated as second only to Los Angeles, will get 
worse, not better, over the next few decades if we fail to act.
  Projections indicate that the number of people and jobs in this area 
will grow by about 50 percent over the next two decades and the number 
of vehicle miles traveled will grow by nearly 75 percent.
  Unfortunately, transportation funding will fall short of our needs by 
$500 million each year, and this shortfall will be even larger if we 
don't get the higher funding levels agreed to in ISTEA II. The U.S. 
Federal Highway Administration predicts that highway funding for the 
Nation as a whole in 1999 will be $12 billion less than we need just to 
maintain our current system, and, again, that is assuming the higher 
funding we have already agreed to in ISTEA II.
  Unfortunately, State funding in Virginia will not be able to make up 
this shortfall. A recent report by the Virginia Department of 
Transportation shows that the spending shortfall in Virginia alone will 
be $1.74 billion in 1999, and this shortfall is projected to get worse, 
rising to $2.44 billion in the year 2009.
  This paints a very grim picture for the future when our present 
situation is already intolerable.
  Today, on average, every man, woman and child pays a congestion tax 
in fuel expenses, lost salaries and productivity, and pollution of $860 
every year. Some have predicted by the year 2020 commuters will spend 
50 percent more time getting to work. Imagine increasing your drive 
time from an hour up to an hour and a half or even from 30 minutes up 
to 45 minutes, depending on where you live and where you work.
  Given our predicament, our failure to act may seem surprising, but 
when we stop and think about it, the Capital region encompasses two 
States and a Federal district within a single metropolitan area. And 
although the area has common needs, it is understandably hard to get 
everyone to agree.
  Some have suggested creating a regional transportation department to 
tax the region and build needed roads. But Marylanders really don't 
want Virginians helping to choose what roads to build in Maryland, and 
Virginians don't want their tax dollars paying for projects in DC, and 
District residents don't want their interests overwhelmed by the 
suburbs. In short, everyone wants to have a say in how he or she will 
be taxed, how their money will be spent, and where roads will be built 
in their neighborhoods.
  Earlier today, I submitted an amendment to assist the region in 
reaching consensus on how to meet its transportation needs. Under this 
proposal, which my office has vetted with a number of State and local 
officials and with the Greater Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, 
the metropolitan planning organization for this region would come up 
with a set of projects and a regional funding mechanism to get those 
projects built. The region would then work toward consensus and an 
interstate agreement on the projects and funding.
  The amendment that I have submitted offers several incentives for the 
region to reach agreement on this package.
  First, the Federal Government would provide a small amount of 
administrative funding to assist the metropolitan planning organization 
for this region,

[[Page S1559]]

the National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board at the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. This board would work 
to find a way to fund and implement its regional transportation plan, 
which is ready to go but for the funding.
  I believe the region has no real choice but to look at a regional 
funding mechanism to meet its needs, because Federal and State money 
will not be enough to address the spending shortfall.
  I understand that reaching an agreement will be a lengthy process. So 
the proposal creates a corporation to provide short-term action on 
transportation needs. The corporation, acting alone, with the express 
consent of the region, would have the power to issue bonds to pay for 
regional projects.
  At first, the corporation would obtain revenue by expanding 
transportation options. For instance, current Federal laws bar single 
drivers from using HOV lanes in this region during peak hours. This 
legislation would permit single drivers to use HOV lanes if they pay a 
toll and if the region agrees to spend the proceeds on transportation. 
In this way, drivers would have more options than they have today and 
the region would have more transportation revenue.
  I realize that tolls are controversial, and part of the controversy 
comes from the fact that toll collection can slow down traffic. This 
legislation bars the use of tolls if they would result in slowing down 
drivers. There is no reason the region could not collect tolls through 
advanced technology, called ``hot lanes,'' which allows drivers to pay 
their tolls without slowing down. ``Hot lanes'' use sensors to measure 
a driver's mileage on a toll road and bill the driver accordingly, 
without requiring them to slow down. Obviously, the tolls would not go 
into effect immediately. As with all the provisions of this amendment, 
the region would have to consent, as it would have to consent to any 
proposal advanced by the Transportation Planning Board.
  Finally, this proposal provides for the expedited congressional 
approval of the region's interstate compact or agreement. Once the 
region reached consensus, it would not have to wait for Congress to 
act. This amendment would give automatic approval of the consensus plan 
unless Congress rejected the plan within 60 days.
  I should reemphasize that this legislation is not intended to impose 
a solution on the region. Neither the transportation planning board nor 
the new corporation would have the power to raise taxes or build roads 
in anyone's backyard. Instead, the legislation is designed to promote 
cooperation among the local governments.
  The region would have to find a set of projects and a funding 
mechanism that is fair to everyone. Only a balanced plan could gain the 
required approval of the regional and State governments.
  In addition, the transportation planning board would need to make 
sure the plan is cost-effective. Voters and local governments will not 
agree to extravagant or impractical projects. Voters would have to be 
convinced that the TPB has come up with an affordable and practical 
strategy to reduce this region's growing traffic problem. The TPB could 
come up with any number of solutions to our gridlock problem, but let 
me describe one possible vision for the region's transportation plan.
  First, we could add an extra lane in each direction on the beltway.
  We could add an additional Potomac River crossing. Alexandria and 
southern Maryland, in particular, would benefit from a southern 
crossing to divert traffic away from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We 
could use these large-scale efforts simply to keep up.
  Additional mass transit and alternative transportation are also 
critical if we are going to reduce congestion and pollution and provide 
transportation for the disabled and for those who cannot afford cars.
  We could direct funds to maintain, upgrade and expand the Metro 
system. And to further reduce automobile traffic, we could expand bus 
service and improve bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Additional 
commuter rail and commuter ferry service on the Potomac are also 
possibilities.
  Finally, we could improve local roads to create a more web-like 
highway system instead of our current hub-and-spoke approach. In the 
future, more people will be commuting along the edges of DC rather than 
into the city itself. A plan of this magnitude would probably cost 
between $8 billion and $15 billion above current spending.

  I should emphasize that the vision I just suggested is that only, a 
vision.
  The Federal Government could not impose a plan on anyone. Local 
citizens would participate in creating a regional transportation 
proposal, and the regional governments would have to consent to any 
agreement. The State departments of transportation in Virginia and 
Maryland and the Department of Public Works in the District of Columbia 
would also have to consent to the agreement.
  The Federal Government would contribute only a small sum, less than 
$1 million divided over 3 years, for the region to move toward 
consensus on action. This small investment, however, would yield 
enormous returns as this region's economy grew in strength.
  More important, this is the kind of investment the Federal Government 
should be making. Traffic in and around our Nation's Capital is an 
interstate problem, creating regional challenges that warrant Federal 
action. Indeed, congestion threatens the very livelihood of our 
Nation's Capital.
  The Federal Government certainly cannot be expected to foot the bill 
for every transportation need, and that is not what I am suggesting 
today. Indeed, I am proposing that the Federal Government should help 
create a framework for the region to help itself.
  There was some understandable anxiety expressed by the departments of 
transportation of the States and the District when we began to explore 
this initiative several months ago. But I believe we have addressed 
those concerns by giving the jurisdictions involved absolute veto power 
over any action they choose not to support.
  Madam President, that is the outline of the proposal that I have 
introduced in the form of an amendment to the pending legislation. It 
is my hope that we will be able to clear this legislation at the 
appropriate time so that we can take action upon it. But at this time I 
simply wanted to explain to our colleagues what it was that was in this 
particular amendment so they could consider it, and if it is necessary, 
tinker with any of the specific provisions. We can do so either between 
now and the time we complete action on the ISTEA II bill, or in 
conference, or with subsequent amendments down the road if we need to 
do any fine-tuning. But I thought it was appropriate to provide our 
colleagues with some suggestions as to how I believe we should approach 
this particularly vexing problem for our Nation's capital.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we have had a good debate, a prolonged 
debate, on S. 1173, the surface transportation bill, or the highway 
bill, as it is known in my State of Mississippi. It is now time to pass 
it and get to work on a conference report with the other body to meet 
the May 1 expiration of current law.
  There is a tremendous backlog of road, bridge and highway projects in 
every state. Some have estimated that our national investment in 
highways per vehicle miles of travel decreased by 56 percent during the 
last 25 years while vehicle travel has increased by 123 percent. This 
illustrates the problem and explains why we have such a serious need to 
address this legislation and complete our work so the states can start 
work on the projects this bill will fund.
  I am very pleased that the bill allocates the money on a much more 
fair and equitable basis than the current formula. Mississippi will get 
over 90 percent, at least, of the highway tax contributions it makes to 
the trust fund. That is a lot better than the 83 percent my State is 
now receiving.
  I'm also pleased that the bill gives the states more flexibility to 
spend the money they get from the trust fund on road, highway and other 
transportation projects that they identify as their priorities rather 
than having to abide by federal priorities that don't coincide with 
state needs.
  In Mississippi 29 percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre 
condition and 39 percent of the State's bridges are structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete.
  These conditions contribute significantly to highway accidents which 
have increased 6 percent during the last 4 years. In addition to the 
loss of

[[Page S1560]]

life, these accidents cost Mississippi's citizens $1.3 billion per 
year, or $500 for every resident, for emergency services, medical 
costs, property damage and lost productivity.
  Another relevant statistic is that 77 percent of all fatal accidents 
were on two-lane roads and only 14 percent were on roads with four 
lanes or more. Money that is spent on highway improvements, such as 
adding lanes and shoulders, will save lives. It is also good economics.
  I'm confident the flexibility provided in this bill will help 
Mississippi solve some of its special and most serious highway and 
transportation problems, especially the completion of our comprehensive 
four lane program.
  Mississippi has been working for over ten years to implement this 
program. According to the Mississippi Department of Transportation, 
projects remaining to be put under contract include 30 miles of US 45, 
17 miles of US 49 West, 69 miles of US 61, 25.4 miles of US 82, 54.6 
miles of US 84, 24.6 miles of US 98, 58 miles of State Road 25, 33 
miles on State Roads 57 and 63, and 10 miles of State Road 302. All of 
US 72 is now under contract and all of US 78 is now open to four-lane 
traffic.
  The specific provision of the bill that helps us in this way gives 
states the flexibility to use up to 22 percent of their trust fund 
allocations for any projects that fall within title XXIII of the U.S. 
Code, which covers all highway programs.
  There are other provisions of this legislation that are of special 
interest to our efforts in Mississippi to ensure that roads, highways 
and bridges on federal lands within the States are improved. Additional 
funding added to the bill as part of the committee amendment will 
provide $850 million in additional contract authority over 5 years for 
the three elements of the Federal Lands Highway Program.
  Funding for Parkways and Park Roads will increase by $70 million per 
year for fiscal years 1999-2003, and funding for Public Lands Highways 
by $50 million per year during the same period. This ought to provide 
funding to bring the Natchez Trace Parkway closer to completion and 
ensure some much needed improvements are made to roads in our national 
forests and wildlife refuge areas.
  Another provision of this bill that is of major interest to me and my 
State is the additional $450 million for funding NAFTA Trade Corridors.
  The I-69 Trade Corridor Highway, which will run from Canada down 
through the Mississippi Valley to our border with Mexico, will provide 
significant economic benefits to the entire region through which it 
passes. We expect our State of Mississippi will be one of the states 
through which I-69 will pass.
  Without this investment, the transportation infrastructure of the 
Mid-South region cannot accommodate the needs associated with 
increasing trade and commercial traffic. Growth in North American 
trade, as well as trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world, is 
supported by recent trends and current projections, particularly in the 
agricultural sector.
  U.S. agricultural exports, which were valued at $26.3 billion in 
fiscal year 1986, increased to $54.2 billion in 1995 and to nearly $60 
billion in fiscal year 1996. We also consistently export more 
agriculture commodities and food products than we import.
  A recent USDA Agricultural Outlook publication projected ``robust 
growth'' in global demand for agricultural products in international 
commodity markets through the year 2005. It also predicted that U.S. 
high-value agricultural exports will continue to show strong growth, 
generally outpacing bulk exports and accounting for a growing share of 
U.S. farm exports.
  Every state in the I-69 Trade Corridor exports agricultural products 
and commodities, sharing in export-generated employment, income, and 
rural development. These exports generate economic activity in the non-
farm economy as well. USDA estimates that each $1.00 received from 
agricultural exports in 1995 stimulated another $1.38 in supporting 
activities to produce those exports generating an estimated 895,000 
full-time civilian jobs, including 562,000 in the non-farm sector.
  Trends in agriculture exports and the potential for their growth 
suggest that additional investment in transportation resources, 
particularly in the I-69 Trade Corridor, will provide a favorable 
return to the economies of all the States and communities along the 
route.
  Madam President, I commend the members of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works who have worked hard to provide more 
funding for our transportation needs and to ensure a more equitable 
distribution of funds to the States, and I especially congratulate, our 
distinguished majority leader for his effective leadership in helping 
to produce a good and fair bill. This bill ought to receive an 
overwhelming vote of approval.
  Madam 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. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________