[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1688-S1696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTRAMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have an amendment I will offer on 
behalf of Senator Nickles, which would permit basically his mass 
transit funds to be used as it related to the funding of Amtrak 
activities in his State. I know of no opposition.


                Amendment No. 1943 to Amendment No. 1931

 (Purpose: To permit States to use assistance provided under the mass 
transit account of the Highway Trust Fund for capital improvements to, 
      and operating support for, intercity passenger rail service)

  Mr. D'AMATO. 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 New York [Mr. D'Amato], for Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1943 to Amendment No. 1931.
  Mr. D'AMATO. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FROM MASS 
                   TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       Section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(o) Intercity Rail Infrastructure Investment.--Any 
     assistance provided to a State that does not have Amtrak 
     service as of the date of enactment of this subsection from 
     the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund may be 
     used for capital improvements to, and operating support for, 
     intercity passenger rail service.''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, this makes no changes in the allocations 
of the appropriations, but it empowers the State transportation people 
to

[[Page S1689]]

make decisions as to how they will allocate the mass transit dollars 
that come to them. If they wish to use them with respect to their 
Amtrak facilities, that is their right. I support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1943) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Rhode Island 
has an amendment he would like to offer.


                Amendment No. 1944 to Amendment No. 1931

 (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to capital projects and small 
                           area flexibility)

  Mr. REED. 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. Reed], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1944 to Amendment No. 1931.

  Mr. REED. 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 __, line __, insert ``and provides non-fixed route 
     paratransit transportation services in accordance with 
     section 223 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12143)'' after ``for mass transportation''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would broaden the definition 
of capital expenditures for paratransit facilities. These are vehicles 
used for disabled American citizens. There are many communities in the 
United States that have these facilities. This definition would not 
adversely affect the allocation and would provide, we hope, for more 
use of the paratransit services. I encourage adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, we have no objection and support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1944) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I believe we have reached a point where I 
am not aware of any other outstanding amendments. I think there may be 
two Senators who, for whatever reason, would object, apparently, to us 
calling for a vote. But it would be the intention, otherwise, of the 
leadership to dispose of this amendment by at least 5:45, is what I've 
been given to understand.
  I don't know what my colleagues might object to or what part of the 
bill they might want to debate. It would seem reasonable to me that if 
they do have objection, they should come to the floor and state it. 
Let's have a vote on it or an attempt to deal with whatever they feel 
is an inequity. We might lose, we might win, or they may get their way, 
or they may not. But the business of the people, I believe, would best 
be served by resolving this.
  I just have no idea at this time as to what their objections might 
be. So even if I were in a position to remedy the deficiencies--and I 
am not saying this is a perfect bill; it is far from perfect, and it 
could be second-guessed by many. But I am not in a position, nor is the 
ranking member or Senator Reed, who is standing in for Senator 
Sarbanes, at this point to even offer any type of solution or 
compromise if we are kept in the dark.
  Now, I don't see any useful purpose in that. So I ask that our 
respective sides reach out to our colleagues through their staffs to 
ascertain from them whether they can inform us as to what procedure 
they would recommend we undertake. If it is to stop the entire bill, 
then it would seem to me that the leadership should be advised so that 
they can proceed accordingly. Any Member has the right to lodge his or 
her objection and to take to the floor and, indeed, make their views 
known, offer their amendments, or prolong debate. I guess that is a 
nice way for saying ``enter into a filibuster.'' I respect that. I 
have, on occasion, resorted to that myself.
  Now, having said that, I came down to the floor and took the floor 
and raised my objection. So when we have reduced a bill to a point 
where all of the Senators, except one or two, have agreed that we 
should go forward, it seems to me that in fairness to the body we 
should have some kind of an explanation and set about a course of 
action to determine how we can deal with it. That would not be my 
prerogative; that would be the prerogative of the majority and minority 
leaders. They might decide to file for cloture, or they might decide to 
undertake another activity, or they might even be able, as I would 
think, to mediate successfully a cessation of the objections from our 
colleagues. But I want the Record to note that we have done as much as 
we can. We are here. We are ready. This bill is ready, and, as far as I 
am concerned and to the best I can determine, this amendment is ready 
to be acted on. Forty-one plus billion dollars would be spent over the 
next 5 years on a combination of activities--rural, urban, suburban, 
new starts, new buses, improvement of existing facilities, extension of 
some --a whole combination.

  Even at this eleventh-and-a-half hour, there are some very worthy 
amendments that we have taken dealing with the disabled and giving 
communities the ability to buy vehicles and put them in a capital 
program that they might not qualify for, giving additional flexibility 
to States to use some of these funds.
  So I think it is a well-balanced approach to transportation. I hope 
my colleagues will give us an opportunity to conduct the business of 
the people as it should.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
maybe we can get our two colleagues to come down and resolve their 
differences.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. 1945 to Amendment No. 1931

    (Purpose: To make an amendment relating to new start rating and 
                              evaluation)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will soon send to the desk an amendment 
which will provide for three additional criteria to be added to the 
current five criteria that are utilized for purposes of the Federal 
Transit Authority's determination of the validity of a New Start 
application.
  These three additional criteria are population density and current 
transit ridership, the technical capability of the applicant to 
construct the project, and the degree of local financial commitment to 
the project, including the degree to which the local community has 
overmatched the project.
  The purpose of these three are to add three relatively quantifiable 
factors to the five existing factors that will be used by the Congress 
and by the Federal Transit Administration in determining which of the 
New Start applications are appropriate for Federal participation.
  I urge adoption of the amendment on behalf of Senator Murray and 
myself.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, one of the great problems that we have 
today is that as more communities grasp the realities of the access to 
move people, particularly in our urban centers with great densities of 
traffic, and come to the Federal Transit Administration with their 
proposals to construct people movers to areas that are alternatively 
utilizing mass transit, there are some programs that are started that 
shouldn't be started, for a variety of reasons.
  In some cases, the technical know-how and capabilities that should be 
there, in terms of studying and getting them ready, just are not. So 
the Senator says one of the criteria is the technical capabilities to 
construct the project. You can come in with a wonderful project, but it 
is ``pie in the sky;'' it is not possible. And what is taking place is 
that new starts are being considered, undertaken, lots of

[[Page S1690]]

money is being laid out by the Federal Government, and engineering 
studies and what-not are taking place, engineering costs are being 
racked up, and there is very little likelihood of people ever being 
able to move. In other words, no transportation project is really going 
to get underway.
  So I commend the Senator for saying let us take a look and see if 
this really is real; is it going to work? Obviously, the needs should 
be tied to the numbers of people that can and should be moved in these 
new start projects. Again, it is nice to have one in every community. 
But what is the logic and sense of spending x hundreds of millions of 
dollars if the numbers of people who would be moved on a daily basis 
are negligible--if there is no demand? So the Senator sets this as a 
criterion.
  And the third and probably most important is the degree of local 
financial commitment to the project; i.e, overmatch. There are those 
who are attempting to build these projects and think they can do it 
simply with Federal funds. That is not the case. We look for matching 
funds. And those communities that recognize the need as such, so they 
are willing to not only contribute what the minimum contribution from 
the local community is but overmatch it, put in more, certainly they 
should have, where funding is available, the ability to draw down those 
funds faster so those projects can be built.
  Right now I think it would be fair to say that we probably have too 
many projects that have been given a green light but there is no hope 
of them moving forward because some of these criteria the Senator has 
put forth are not met. So this is prudence, in saying, let's do that 
which can be done.
  I commend the Senator, and I support his amendment.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. REED. I concur with the analysis of Chairman D'Amato with respect 
to this legislation and also commend the Senator from Florida. This is 
a legislative initiative that puts further precision into the granting 
of startup contracts. It puts in factors that are critical to the whole 
consideration of when we should support at the Federal level a local 
initiative.
  As the chairman said, one of the major criteria is local support, 
which is measured most effectively in terms of dollars, but also in 
terms of the population density and leadership they anticipate in this 
new startup. All of these are important additions to existing criteria, 
which the Senator retains.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 1945 to amendment No. 
     1931.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GRAHAM. If there are no other persons wishing to speak on this 
amendment, I urge a voice vote.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1945) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Alon 
Street of my office be granted the privilege of the floor throughout 
debate of ISTEA II.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:40 
p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on the pending transit amendment No. 
1931, as amended, to S. 1173, the highway bill. I further ask unanimous 
consent that no amendments be in order to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, there is an outstanding issue between the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee 
involving university transportation centers. Apparently, there are 
conflicting provisions in our bills.
  I thank my friend and colleague, who has done such an outstanding 
job, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his patience. I am 
committed to working with the chairman to resolve this situation 
together. I thank him for allowing us to proceed. I believe we will be 
able to work this out, and I pledge to work with him. He has always 
demonstrated a willingness to accommodate the needs of his colleagues, 
and I am looking forward to being able to do it in this case as well.
  Mr. President, let me say that I am deeply grateful for the 
tremendous leadership and contribution that the senior Senator from 
Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, has contributed, both himself personally 
and with a great and talented staff, to bring us to this point. I do 
not know how many people really thought that within this day we would 
be able to come to a point where we are in a position of passing this 
part of the Surface Transportation Act overwhelmingly. Without his 
patience, without his leadership, without his constant support, both 
during the negotiations for attempting to achieve the additional 
funding, $9.8 billion over and above the previous ISTEA allocations, we 
could never have been in a position to accommodate the legitimate 
interest and needs of so many of our colleagues.
  Again, while we might have differences because we do represent 
different regions, different configurations of the population where 
different needs may exist, while not everyone is happy, I am certain 
that there are those in the mass transit industry who think we need 
more. Understand, this is not a pie that continues to expand. There are 
constraints and we have to draw from that which we are allocated.
  On the basis of both working to achieve a greater allocation and 
working to achieve a fair distribution, no one has done more than my 
good friend, the Senator from Maryland. For that I am deeply, deeply 
appreciative. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague, Chairman 
D'Amato, for his very kind words. I simply underscore that it has been 
a pleasure to work with him on this issue and also to thank him very 
much for his leadership throughout. He has been, of course, a leader on 
the transit issue in the Senate. It was reflected once again in the 
consideration of this measure.
  I also thank by name the staff people involved: Steve Harris and 
Loretta Garrison on this side of the aisle, and Howard Menell, Joe 
Mondello and Peggy Kuhn on the other side of the aisle, who really have 
made extraordinary contributions. They have worked late at night, early 
in the morning, on the weekends. They have really committed themselves 
totally to helping to bring us to this state of affairs. The fact that 
we have put together a good transit title is very much due to the 
tremendous contributions which the staff people have made. I express my 
appreciation to all of them.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 1931

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have one unanimous consent request, and 
it is technical in nature. I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment 
No. 1931 to change all references to the ``Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997'' in the amendment

[[Page S1691]]

to the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998''--
that is very technical in nature, again because we waited 6 months--and 
change all references to the ``Federal Transit Act of 1997'' in the 
amendment to the ``Federal Transit Act of 1998.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification follows:
       Modify amendment (No. 1931) to change all references to the 
     ``Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997'' 
     in the amendment to the ``Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1998'', and to change all references to the 
     ``Federal Transit Act of 1997'' in the amendment to the 
     ``Federal Transit Act of 1998''.

  Mr. SARBANES. This is an apt demonstration, Mr. President, of the 
fact that we are really up with the times.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank the Committee on Banking--all of 
the members. They have been particularly helpful and have made, I 
think, tremendous contributions to allow us to arrive at this point.
  The Budget Committee, especially Senator Domenici and Senator 
Lautenberg--without their help we could not have come to this point. 
And I thank the leadership of the Senate that has given us the 
opportunity to work in a collaborative manner and has been supportive.
  I also note, for the Record, and to the chagrin of some, there were 
some who said, ``Oh, the Senate and its leadership don't care about 
mass transportation, that if you look at the numbers of States that use 
it or are dependent on those as opposed to those who are not, then 
those needs will be neglected.'' I think that maybe even some 
colleagues, for whatever reason--some colleagues in the Congress--may 
have hoped that to be the case. But, once again, I think the common 
good, and recognizing how we have to deal and must deal with each 
other, overrode the parochialism that sometimes rears its head.
  I could not be more grateful and thankful for the leadership that has 
been provided on both sides of the aisle by Senator Daschle, and the 
minority side, and by Senator Lott on the majority side.
  I say that my staff, particularly Peggy Kuhn, Joe Mondello, Jr., 
Loretta Garrison, under the able leadership of Howard Menell, staff 
director, have been Herculean and have been totally dedicated to 
bringing us to this point. Again, I am deeply appreciative of them.
  I am also appreciative of the professionalism of the minority staff. 
They have been absolutely outstanding. No one could have asked for 
better cooperation from the minority staff. Sometimes I think they felt 
that they worked for me or sometimes I felt that I worked for them. 
More often Senators, I think, are accountable--people do not realize--
to our staff to a great degree. But I thank them. I thank them for 
their patience and for their persistence and for their working long and 
enduring hours. They have made, hopefully, the amendment that will be 
considered a reality.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. I see the Senator from Texas is on the floor. I say to 
the Senator, we are scheduled for a vote at 5:45. So the time between 
now and 5:45 is available.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
think Senator D'Amato, Senator Sarbanes, and all of those who worked so 
hard, including especially Senator Domenici, for helping us find this 
money in the budget, should be commended, because there is no question 
that highways are the lifeline of our country. But there is a point at 
which in you cannot build enough freeways in our biggest cities to get 
rid of the congestion. This is especially happening in some of the 
States that have new emerging big cities that have not kept up with 
their infrastructure demands.
  Some of those cities are in my State of Texas. We now have some of 
our biggest cities starting to try rail. And some are being successful. 
For instance, in Dallas, when people said, no one could get Dallasites 
out of their cars, nevertheless, people are leaving their cars to ride 
the new DART trains. It has been so successful--over an extended period 
of time--that they are going to try to get the extended DART lines out 
in a quicker timetable.
  So it is very important that we look at cities, not only like Dallas, 
but San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, and Fort Worth in my State. There are 
other States now that are looking at new transit systems--Colorado, 
Utah--Western States that have not had traffic problems before.
  The issue really is that in order to have a good infrastructure in 
our country, we must have more than one mode of transportation. 
Highways are the lifeline. But we also have airports and airplanes. We 
have buses. We have trains. Particularly in our urban areas, this is 
the only way we can address congestion. We cannot have a clean 
environment in a major city if we have cars stuck on freeways for hours 
at a time. We cannot have environmental purity throughout our States if 
we do not have some way to stop this congestion.
  The aesthetics. You cannot continue to build big spaghetti-bowl 
freeways and have any kind of aesthetics if you cannot get away from 
that.
  So I do think highways are our first line. And that is why the lion's 
share of the money is going to highways. But I think this amendment, 
that allows $5 billion additional for transit, half of which is 
earmarked for our new starts, recognizes that there are new emerging 
cities that are behind in their infrastructure improvements. This will 
give them the capability to do new starts in things like rail systems 
that will have, hopefully, the success of the Dallas DART train. Even 
Houston is beginning to look at this kind of rail system in a line from 
Katy to downtown where the freeway congestion is like a parking lot 
most of the day.
  These are things that I hope we can help to start. I hope that we can 
give incentives to some of our major big cities that have not had years 
and years and years of mass transit funding to be able to start 
thinking of new and innovative ways to have a cleaner environment, to 
stop the waste of money and time of congested traffic, and to have 
aesthetics that are also pleasing in a city.
  So these are the reasons that I am supporting this amendment. I think 
it is quite a good compromise. I think Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Domenici, along with Senator Sarbanes, and all of those who had the 
foresight to provide this extra money, are to be commended. And I do 
commend them. I hope my colleagues will recognize that this is an 
environmental vote, it is an anesthetic vote, it is a time-conserving 
vote, and it is a money-conserving vote.
  I hope that we will pass this and give our cities the chance. The 
locals match this Federal funding. It is not like it is all Federal 
funding. The local people should match. That is the right thing to do. 
But this does give them a very important start.
  Thank you, 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. D'AMATO. 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. D'AMATO. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
1931, as amended.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey

[[Page S1692]]


     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Gregg
     Helms
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
  The amendment (No. 1931), as amended, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                              Safety Title

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the Commerce 
Committee's Safety title that was adopted by the full Senate last week. 
That amendment reauthorizes the many surface transportation safety 
programs last reviewed in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.
  Mr. President, the Commerce Committee spent considerable time and 
effort developing that safety amendment. The Committee held a number of 
hearings--both at the full Committee and Subcommittee levels--to 
consider ISTEA reauthorization matters under its jurisdiction. The 
Committee held hearings focusing on National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) issues, including air bag deployment and seat 
belt usage; motor carrier safety issues, including the Motor Carrier 
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and truck size issues; hazardous 
materials transportation; and proposals to improve protection of 
underground energy, water, and communications systems from excavator 
damage.
  The comprehensive safety amendment is a bi-partisan Commerce 
Committee product. It incorporates many of the proposals requested in 
the Administration's reauthorization submission, which was entitled the 
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA). 
This bi-partisan amendment also includes a number of new transportation 
safety proposals. It is designed to improve travel safety on our 
nation's roads and waterways, promote the safe shipment of hazardous 
materials, protect underground pipelines and telecommunications cables 
from excavation damage, and ensure that our nation's commercial motor 
vehicle fleet is well maintained and safely operated.
  Mr. President, transportation safety must be at the forefront of our 
deliberations during the debate on ISTEA reauthorization and I was 
pleased to offer one of the very first amendments. S. 1173 proposes 
funding and policy authorizations to improve our transportation 
infrastructure and facilitate the efficient and economical 
transportation of people and goods. The amendment offered on behalf of 
myself and Senator Hollings is a vital component of that effort. Our 
amendment will help ensure that people and goods not only move 
efficiently, but that they move safely too.
  The need for improvements in federal transportation safety policy is 
crystal clear. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report 
that deaths from transportation accidents in the United States totaled 
more than 44,000 for calendar year 1996. Highway-related deaths, which 
account for more than 90 percent of all transportation fatalities, rose 
by 109, reaching a total of 41,907. The Federal Transit Administration 
reported 120 fatalities from accidents associated with the operations 
of light and commuter rail companies, compared to 98 in 1995. And, 
pipeline-related deaths totaled 20, compared to 21 in 1995.
  Mr. President, I would like to provide a broad overview of the 
various transportation safety provisions contained in the amendment as 
adopted last week. First, this amendment would reauthorize a number of 
programs under the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety on America's roadways, 
including grant programs which would provide $1.1 billion to the states 
over the next six years. While many of us wish we could have authorized 
funding at the levels requested by the Administration, the Committee 
had to also acknowledge the budget agreement entered into last year. 
Accordingly, the levels authorized in the amendment reflect that 
agreement. However, I stand ready to increase the levels should an 
agreement be reached with the Budget Committee to enable a higher 
authorization level.
  Second, this amendment reauthorizes funding for programs to ensure 
the safe transportation of hazardous materials. It also includes a 
number of changes intended to strengthen and improve the hazardous 
materials transportation program. For example, according to DOT's 
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) statistics, there 
were hundreds of transportation related incidents involving undeclared 
or hidden hazardous materials. These incidents resulted in 110 deaths 
and 112 injuries from January 1990 through October 1996. This 
legislation would give DOT inspectors the authority to open and examine 
the contents of packages suspected of containing hazardous materials.
  This provision would help ensure that packages containing undeclared 
hazardous materials shipments can be removed from transportation before 
they harm individuals. In the event a package is opened under the 
amendment's authorities, DOT inspectors would be required to mark the 
package accordingly and notify the shipper before the parcel could 
continue in transport.
  The amendment also expands hazardous materials training access by 
allowing States and Indian tribes to use a portion of their grants to 
assist small businesses in complying with regulations. DOT has 
indicated that the majority of hazardous materials shipment and 
packaging mistakes occur at small businesses.
  The amendment also authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
issue emergency orders when it is determined that an unsafe condition 
poses an imminent hazard. In such a situation, the Secretary is granted 
the authority to issue recalls, restrictions, or out-of-service orders 
to lessen the dangerous condition.

  Third, at the request of the Majority Leader, this amendment 
incorporates S. 1115, the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act 
introduced by Senators Lott and Daschle on July 31, 1997. S. 1115 would 
facilitate a national effort encouraging states to strengthen their 
laws that protect underground pipelines, telecommunication cables, and 
other infrastructure from excavation damage. S. 1115 passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent on November 9, 1997.
  Fourth, this amendment reauthorizes the Motor Carrier Safety 
Assistance Program (MCSAP) which provides funding for commercial driver 
and vehicle safety inspections, traffic enforcement, compliance reviews 
and safety data collection.
  It further authorizes a performance-based approach for the MCSAP, 
removing many of the prescriptive requirements of the program. Instead, 
States would be given greater flexibility to implement safety 
activities and goals they design to evaluate and improve truck safety 
programs. This new performance-based approach, to be implements by the 
year 2000, would enable States to spend their limited resources on 
those activities best able to address their unique motor carrier 
problem areas.
  This legislation also contains several other important truck and bus 
safety enhancement provisions. The amendment would help ensure greater 
safety oversight by permitting the Secretary to contract with private 
entities to conduct inspections and investigations to ensure compliance 
with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Similar contractual 
authority is already afforded to the Department of Defense and the 
Federal Aviation Administration. The bill further strengthens safety 
oversight by extending safety regulations such as Commercial Drivers 
Licensing and drug and alcohol testing requirements to for-hire 
passenger vans. It would also permit the Secretary to order any unsafe 
carrier to cease operations. Currently this authority applies only to 
prevent unsafe operations of commercial passenger carriers and 
hazardous materials carriers.
  We have also incorporated a number of provisions designed to promote 
the

[[Page S1693]]

timely and accurate exchange of important carrier and driver safety 
records. Strategic and effective policies should always be based on 
timely and accurate information. Good data is crucial to good decision 
making. Therefore, the McCain/Hollings amendment gives the Office of 
Motor Carriers the capability to improve its existing data collection 
programs through the development of more technologically advanced 
systems.
  We have all too often heard of stories where even the most 
sophisticated information systems contains inaccurate data and data 
which frequently is difficult for the affected party to correct. 
Therefore, when implementing the information systems and strategic 
safety initiatives authorized in the McCain/Hollings amendment, the 
Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the motor carrier data 
collected is needed and accurate, and that the information collected is 
protected from disclosure that would unfairly injure the motor carrier 
or the commercial motor vehicle driver.
  Mr. President, every time Congress considers legislation affecting 
federal motor carrier safety regulations, various segments of the 
industry seek exemptions. Some are common sense, such as acknowledging 
the special transportation time constraints of farmers during the 
planting and harvesting seasons. But, I strongly believe we should not 
have to pass a bill every time an exemption is warranted. The 
consideration of regulatory exemptions is a proper function of the 
Executive Branch.
  This amendment seeks to address this issue. Today, the Secretary of 
Transportation has the authority to grant exemptions. However, the 
authority is relatively meaningless because prior to granting a waiver 
or exemption, it must first be proven the exemption would not diminish 
safety. That's an appropriate consideration, but how can DOT assess an 
exemption's safety risk if it can't first test the concept on a limited 
pilot basis?
  In an attempt to address this problem and recognize the Secretary 
should be permitted to examine innovative approaches or alternatives to 
certain rules, Senator Hollings and I have worked to define a process 
whereby the Secretary may grant waivers and exemptions. This 
legislation would also authorize the Secretary to carry out pilot 
programs to test the affects of limited regulatory exemptions.
  I am urging my colleagues to work with Senator Hollings and myself to 
help us enact a reasoned and safe waiver/exemption/ pilot project 
process. While this amendment also incorporates three amendments 
authored by Senator Burns to provide regulatory exemptions to three 
industry segments, I have committed to working with Senator Burns to 
find an alternative approach. We are not quite in agreement, but I 
think we are getting closer. I bring this to my colleagues attention in 
order to inform the members that I expect that some amendments will be 
offered very shortly to alter the Senator's exemptions.
  In another transportation area, the McCain/Hollings amendment 
addresses the serious security threats to our Nation's railroad and 
mass transportation systems. As my colleagues well know, our 
transportation system is vulnerable to security threats. Two years, 
Arizonans and citizens throughout the country were saddened to learn of 
an Amtrak derailment near Hyder, Arizona, which claimed the life of one 
individual and injured seventy-eight others. Shortly after the 
accident, the sadness turned to shock as we learned that the derailment 
could have been caused by someone who may have intentionally sabotaged 
the track. The Arizona accident is not unique. There have been other 
examples of acts against railroads. Therefore, as requested by the 
Administration, this legislation would create criminal sanctions for 
violent attacks against railroads, their employees, and passengers. The 
penalties are similar to those which currently cover vessels, airlines, 
motor carriers, and pipelines.

  Finally, this amendment addresses boating safety concerns. In 
conjunction with Finance Committee extensions of the motorboat fuel, 
fishing equipment excise, and other tax and trust fund authorities, 
this amendment would reauthorize the Wallop-Breaux boating safety and 
sportfish restoration programs which are funded directly from these 
revenues. It is designed to ensure state boating safety programs 
receive a higher level of funding, and a level that is more 
proportionate to the amount of motorboat fuel taxes paid by boaters. In 
the past, receipts into the Boating Safety Account have been diverted 
for other purposes.
  This amendment would also reauthorize the Clean Vessel Act, which is 
funded through the Wallop-Breaux program's trust fund. It provides 
funds to the states for vessel sanitation pump-out programs, a new 
state boating infrastructure improvement program, and boating safety 
programs. In addition, it would create a new national outreach and 
communications program to help increase safe and responsible boating 
and fishing and increases funding available to states for boating 
infrastructure and aquatic resources education projects.
  I am well aware that Senator Chafee and other members of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works have views on certain aspects of these 
boating safety provisions. We have been working and will continue to 
work with these members on this section of the McCain/Hollings 
amendment in an effort to reach an agreement on these provisions prior 
to final passage of the bill.
  Mr. President, clearly this is a very comprehensive transportation 
safety amendment. I have not discussed every single item, but I have 
provided a thorough overview of its complex provisions. I also ask 
unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Summary of the Major Provisions in the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
          and Transportation Safety Title Amendment to S. 1173


                       SUBTITLE A HIGHWAY SAFETY

       Subtitle A reauthorizes grant programs administered by the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that 
     are designed to improve safety on America's roadways. The 
     Subtitle authorizes over $1.1 billion to the states during 
     the next 6 years for the safety grant programs. Specifically, 
     the Subtitle would reauthorize the State and Community 
     Highway Safety Program which provides grants under Section 
     402 of Title 23. The incentive grant program concerning 
     alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures is also 
     reauthorized, but the Subtitle moves it from Section 410 and 
     incorporates it within Section 402 of Title 23.
       Subtitle A adds several new grant programs. One of the 
     grant programs established would improve occupant protection 
     programs by encourage states to provide for primary 
     enforcement of seat belt laws. That program is located in a 
     reconstituted Section 410. Subtitle A provides incentives for 
     the states to improve safety programs, rather than sanctions. 
     Another program added would provide grants to states to 
     encourage them to improve the quality of their highway safety 
     data. Subtitle A also expands NHTSA's existing drugs and 
     driver behavior research and development program to include 
     measures that may deter drugged driving. The Subtitle 
     includes an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan to authorize 
     NHTSA to undertake programs to train law enforcement officers 
     on motor vehicle pursuits conducted by law enforcement 
     officers. An amendment offered by Senator Ford requires State 
     highway safety programs to have guidelines that improve law 
     enforcement services including the enforcement of light 
     transmission standards of glazing for passenger motor 
     vehicles and light trucks.


             SUBTITLE B HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

       This section reauthorizes funding and strengthens and 
     improves programs to ensure the safe transportation of 
     hazardous materials. It would authorize DOT inspectors to 
     open and examine the contents of hazardous materials suspect 
     packages to prevent illegal shipments and requires DOT 
     inspectors to mark opened packages and notify the shipper 
     before the parcel can continue in transport. In the event a 
     package is opened under the authority provided in Subtitle B, 
     DOT inspectors would be required to mark the package 
     accordingly and notify the shipper before the parcel can 
     continue in transport.
       Subtitle B also expands access to hazardous materials 
     training opportunities by allowing States and Indian tribes 
     to use a portion of their grants to assist in training small 
     businesses in complying with regulations. This provision is 
     necessary because the majority of hazardous materials 
     shipment and packaging mistakes occur at small businesses. 
     The Secretary of Transportation also is authorized to issue 
     emergency orders when it is determined that an unsafe 
     condition poses an imminent hazard. In such a situation, the 
     Secretary is granted the authority to issue recalls, 
     restrictions, or out-of-service orders to lessen the 
     dangerous condition.

[[Page S1694]]

       The Committee held a hearing on issues relating to the 
     reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 
     on May 8, 1997.


            SUBTITLE C--COMPREHENSIVE ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION

       This section incorporates the provisions of S. 1115, the 
     Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act, introduced by 
     Senators Lott, Daschle and others on July 31, 1997. S. 1115 
     is intended to encourage States to strengthen laws that 
     protect underground pipelines, telecommunication cables, and 
     other infrastructure from excavation damage. The measure 
     creates a voluntary program under which states that choose to 
     improve their underground damage excavation prevention 
     programs could apply for Federal grants.
  The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine held a 
hearing on S. 1115 on September 17, 1997 and S. 1115 passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent on November 9, 1997.


                SUBTITLE D--MOTOR CARRIER VEHICLE SAFETY

       Subtitle D reauthorizes the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
     Program (MCSAP) which provides funding to the States for 
     commercial driver and vehicle safety inspections, traffic 
     enforcement, compliance reviews and safety data collection. 
     It also authorizes a performance-based approach to be 
     implemented for the MCSAP by 2000, removing many of the 
     prescriptive requirements of the program. A performance-based 
     program would enable States to target their safety 
     enforcement efforts on activities that directly improve motor 
     carrier safety.
       Subtitle D contains other provisions intended to strengthen 
     commercial motor vehicle safety enforcement by permitting the 
     Secretary to order any unsafe carrier to cease operations. 
     The Secretary's existing authority applies only to the 
     prevention of unsafe commercial passenger operators and 
     hazardous materials carriers. The provisions in Subtitle D 
     permit the Secretary to contract with private entities to 
     conduct inspections and investigations to ensure compliance 
     with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Similar 
     contractual authority is already afforded to the Department 
     of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration.
       To promote the timely and accurate exchange of important 
     carrier and driver safety records, Subtitle D would authorize 
     comprehensive information systems and strategic safety 
     initiatives to support motor carrier regulatory and 
     enforcement activities as requested by the Administration. 
     The Subtitle also establishes a pilot program to help 
     facilitate the exchange of accurate driver records data 
     history. Language is included in the Subtitle to permit 
     carriers to provide safety records of former drivers to 
     prospective employers as required by law without the fear of 
     a former employee taking legal action against the carrier, 
     provided the data exchanged is accurate.
       The Full Committee held a hearing on Truck Safety issues on 
     April 24, 1997.
       During the Commerce Committee's consideration of this 
     legislation, three amendments offered by Senator Burns 
     were accepted by voice vote. The amendments would exempt 
     retailers that transport agricultural chemicals from the 
     Department of Transportation's hazardous materials 
     transportation safety regulations; permit States to waive 
     Commercial Driver License (CDL) requirements for custom 
     harvesters and other farm-related service industry 
     employees; and, exempt all drivers of utility industry 
     vehicles from Department of Transportation Hours of 
     Service and physical testing and reporting regulations.


            SUBTITLE E--RAIL AND MASS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

       As requested by the Administration, Subtitle would provide 
     for criminal sanctions in cases of violent attacks against 
     railroads, their employees, and passengers. These stronger 
     criminal sanctions, intended to help deter against future 
     attacks against the rail industry, are similar to penalties 
     which currently cover attacks against vessels, airlines, 
     motor carriers, and pipelines. In addition, the Subtitle 
     clarifies the Secretary's authority to ensure safety issues 
     are fully addressed prior to making grants or loans to or for 
     the benefit of commuter railroads subject to the Federal 
     Railroad Administration safety regulations.


              SUBTITLE F--SPORTFISHING AND BOATING SAFETY

       In conjunction with Finance Committee extensions of the 
     motorboat fuel, fishing equipment excise, and other tax and 
     trust fund authorities, Subtitle F would reauthorize the 
     Wallop-Breaux boating safety and sportfish restoration 
     programs which are funded directly from these revenues. The 
     Subtitle is designed to ensure state boating safety programs 
     receive a higher level of funding, and a level that is more 
     proportionate to the amount of motorboat fuel taxes paid by 
     boaters. In the past, receipts into the Boating Safety 
     Account have been diverted for other purposes.
       Further, the Subtitle would reauthorize the Clean Vessel 
     Act, which is funded through the Wallop-Breaux program's 
     trust fund. Subtitle F provides funds to the states for 
     vessel sanitation pump-out programs, a new state boating 
     infrastructure improvement program, and boating safety 
     programs. In addition, it would create a new national 
     outreach and communications program to help increase safe and 
     responsible boating and fishing and increases funding 
     available to states for boating infrastructure and aquatic 
     resources education projects.


                       SUBTITLE G--MISCELLANEOUS

       Subtitle G includes an amendment adopted by the Commerce 
     Committee offered by Senator Gorton. The Subtitle authorizes 
     $10 million from general revenues for each of the years 
     covered by the Intermodal Transportation Safety Act 
     reauthorization for grants to States for pilot projects to 
     improve and rehabilitate publicly and privately owned 
     shortline and regional railroads. Subtitle G requires the 
     shortline and regional railroads to share in the costs of the 
     rail infrastructure improvement projects funded by the State 
     grants.


                     Amendments Nos. 1709 and 1710

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of two amendments 
as sponsored by Senator Campbell, numbered 1709 and 1710, which would 
improve the delivery of ISTEA funds for the Indian reservation roads 
system now administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
  Amendment 1709 is an administrative efficiencies provision that will 
allow tribes to construct more roads and bridges with the funds they 
receive under ISTEA. Simply put, amendment 1709 allows Indians to get a 
bigger bang for their ISTEA buck.
  The amendment does not increase the overall ISTEA funding targeted to 
Indian roads and bridges under this bill. Instead, it allows tribes to 
assume all functions, programs, activities and services previously 
managed for tribes by an inefficient and wasteful BIA bureaucracy that 
has been paid for with ISTEA funds.
  Unless we enact this amendment, up to six percent of the Indian ISTEA 
funds will continue to be diverted to pay for a BIA bureaucracy that is 
often located far from the Indian communities to be served. Amendment 
1709 would provide express authority for these funds to be made 
available to willing tribes to build roads and bridges in their local 
communities.
  Congress has been trying to curb the BIA bureaucracy and support 
tribal autonomy ever since 1975 when it first enacted the Indian Self-
Determination Act, known as Public Law 93-638. In recent years, I have 
been pleased to be part of legislative efforts to expand Self-
Determination and Tribal Self-Governance.
  Four years ago, the Congress enacted substantive amendments to Public 
Law 93-638 which by its terms makes all funds, at all levels of the 
BIA, available to tribes to do for themselves what BIA bureaucrats have 
previously claimed to do for Indians. Public Law 93-638 authorities now 
allow a tribe, at its option, to cut through levels and levels of 
bureaucratic red tape and efficiently build things and run programs. 
The law has well-developed minimum standards and reporting requirements 
which assure accountability without a wasteful and offensively 
paternalistic federal oversight bureaucracy.
  In many ways, Public Law 93-638 works like a consolidated block 
grant. It is designed to encourage tribal efficiency and 
accountability, and to maximize benefits by targeting local priority 
needs.
  In the 1994 amendments to Public Law 93-638, the Congress intended to 
apply these authorities to all funds administered by the BIA, including 
ISTEA funds transferred to BIA from the Department of Transportation 
for the benefit of Indian roads and bridges.
  Despite our clear references in Committee report and floor language 
that this was our intent, the BIA has refused tribal efforts to fully 
subject all ISTEA funds to Public Law 93-638. This issue has consumed 
hundreds of hours of federal-tribal negotiations since 1994. Great sums 
of time and money have been wasted in arguments between BIA and tribal 
officials about whether the Congress wanted to permit the BIA roads 
bureaucracy to continue to fund itself by diverting up to six percent 
of the ISTEA funds away from actual construction in Indian and Native 
communities.

  Last month, the BIA issued proposed regulations on Tribal Self-
Governance which claim that the 1994 amendments do not prohibit the BIA 
from continuing to withhold from tribes up to six percent of the ISTEA 
funds in order to fund the BIA roads bureaucracy. ISTEA is the last 
major BIA account which the BIA continues to protect as immune from the 
reach of tribal requests under Public Law 93-638 to obtain a direct 
transfer of the full tribal share of these funds.

[[Page S1695]]

  When I learned of this debate and the proposed regulations, I looked 
back at our actions in 1994 and realized we in Congress intended the 
1994 amendments to Public Law 93-638 to apply to ISTEA funds 
transferred to the BIA from the Department of Transportation. They were 
to be treated like all other funds administered by the BIA--if a tribe 
wanted to obtain its full share of funds directly, in a flexible and 
accountable contract or compact, it could do so.
  I believed then, and I believe now, that there is nothing unique 
about building a road that requires a federal bureaucracy. Many tribes 
are building safe buildings that adhere to prevailing codes; they can 
do the same on roads and bridges without a heavy handed and costly BIA 
supervision.
  There are two ways by which Amendment 1709 would squeeze more benefit 
out of the funding levels otherwise provided under ISTEA. First, the 
amendment would clearly and expressly allow any tribe, so choosing, to 
require the BIA to transfer that tribe's full share of ISTEA funding 
directly to the tribe rather than being siphoned off by a wasteful, 
federal bureaucracy. Second, the amendment would allow a tribe to 
administer ISTEA funds under the flexible authorities provided by 
Public Law 93-638, including greater local control and responsibility, 
field decision-making powers, sharply reduced paperwork and reporting 
requirements, audited accountability, consolidated local operations, 
and in general, the local, tribal power to respond to project 
challenges and local needs when and as they occur.
  Amendment 1710 would require that regulations implementing the Indian 
ISTEA program and refashioning its funding allocation formula be 
prepared under negotiated rulemaking procedures adapted to the unique 
government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the 
United States. This amendment simply borrows from the recent success 
that Indian tribes and the United States have forged in carrying out 
the government-to-government negotiated rulemaking on the Native 
American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA).
  In recent days, the Administration has finalized rules governing the 
implementation of NAHADSA. From what we have heard in Congress, nearly 
all Indian tribes are pleased with the outcome of this federal-tribal 
negotiated rulemaking process. That is remarkable, given that the final 
regulations put detail upon a major overhaul of the Indian housing 
program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD). NAHADSA reorganized how hundreds of millions of federal 
construction funds are spent each year. And the tribal satisfaction is 
even more noteworthy given that the federal-tribal negotiated 
rulemaking process also produced a revised funding allocation formula, 
guided by factors set out in the underlying statute.

  Given the NAHADSA successes in allowing tribes to negotiate a new 
funding allocation formula to determine how the funds are divided up 
among tribes, I am convinced that the same approach should be applied 
to ISTEA funds. It works, and should be replicated on ISTEA, where many 
of the same issues involving housing construction are raised in efforts 
to construct roads.
  Amendment 1710 reflects the language used in NAHADSA to provide a 
statutory framework of basic relative need assessment factors to be 
used by the tribal-federal negotiating team to develop a new funding 
allocation formula. The specific language of Amendment 1710 would 
ensure that the new funding formula fairly takes into account Indian 
communities who have not had their road needs met under previous 
formulas.
  Amendment 1710 should not be seen by the BIA as an opportunity to 
completely rewrite the regulations already promulgated under Public Law 
93-638. Indeed, these should for the most part apply to the Indian 
ISTEA, except where they now preclude a tribe from using the full 
authorities of Public Law 93-638 in the ISTEA program due to a mis-
reading of our intention in the 1994 Amendments to Public Law 93-638 to 
fully subject ISTEA funds administered by BIA to Public Law 93-638.
  Both amendments 1709 and 1710 will maximize the benefit of the ISTEA 
dollars in Indian communities. This kind of express statutory language 
in ISTEA is apparently needed to remove any room for doubt on the part 
of the BIA that all ISTEA funding for Indian roads and bridges must be 
brought within the parameters of Public Law 93-638. I urge my 
colleagues to support these two amendments as one way we can maximize 
the benefit, and better target the expenditure, of ISTEA funds 
otherwise directed toward Indian roads and bridges in this bill.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to take part in the debate 
to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1997, commonly known as ISTEA. This debate was originally scheduled to 
take place the first week in May. As we all know, the current measure 
is designed to end in the last week in April. Had we not debated this 
until the first week of May, there would have been an interruption in 
the funding and the opportunity to build highways in this country. So I 
express my appreciation to the majority leader for moving this debate 
up and making it possible for us to address this issue. When we are 
talking about the construction of infrastructure, which allows the body 
politic to be nourished by the stream of commerce, it is important that 
we don't interrupt that stream. I thank the majority leader, however, 
for the people of Missouri, the crisis is not yet over. The necessary 
funds for their road improvement projects still have not been approved.
  It is with great concern for the State of Missouri that I rise today. 
It is concern for everyone that relies on our transportation 
infrastructure to go to work or school, to the grocery store and to 
return home. It is concern for the workers who improve our existing 
roads and build new ones. I urge the Senate to quickly relieve the 
people of my state of the uncertainty caused by the lack of consistent 
funds, that hangs over their heads.
  It also is imperative that we pass a six year ISTEA authorization 
bill that gives states a fair return on their transportation dollars. 
These funds enable states to invest in improvement projects that affect 
Americans daily lives. Every day millions of Americans depend on our 
roads and bridges to safely and timely go about their lives. The need 
for safe roads is universal to every thriving community and the life of 
every American. Investment in our transportation infrastructure 
translates into safer and less congested travel.
  I have been contacted by several of my constituents expressing their 
frustration with Congress' failure to authorize the funds necessary to 
continue their road improvement projects. As they spend more and more 
time, stuck in traffic waiting to return home to their families, they 
wonder, ``Why Congress has not acted?'' They wonder, ``Why is ISTEA 
stuck in traffic, as well?''
  While Congress has been unable to finish the job of passing the 
highway bill in a swift manner, there has been several Members of this 
body that have worked tirelessly to move this legislation forward. I am 
grateful, on behalf of the citizens of Missouri, for the work that has 
been done on this bill to ensure a fair return to Missourians for the 
kind of contribution that they make to the highway trust fund. I 
especially thank the senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, for his 
irreplaceable effort in this battle. No Senator in this Chamber, in my 
judgment, has made a more conscientious and consistent effort to make 
sure that there was fairness in the allocation of these highway 
resources than Senator Kit Bond. Without his work, our current debate 
would not be to make sure the road construction continues unimpeded but 
to get it started again.
  To me, the issue is clear, and it has been clear throughout the 
entire debate. When a Missourian fills a gas tank and pays 4.3 cents in 
Federal fuel taxes, that money should go to improving roads rather than 
paying for additional Federal spending on some social program in a 
distant State. That is another improvement that this bill reflects, 
putting highway taxes back into the highway trust fund.

  I think the decision, which involved both the authorizing committee 
and the Budget Committee, to dedicate the 4.3 cent fuel tax to highways 
is a good one, and I am pleased to support that aspect of this bill. 
When this is all

[[Page S1696]]

over, Missourians will now see a 91 cent return on each dollar as 
opposed to a dismal 80 cents that it received under the former funding 
scheme. Under the formula that was passed out of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Missouri will receive $3.6 billion compared to 
$2.4 billion that Missouri received over the last 6 years of the 1991 
highway bill. Missouri's average allocation per year would be around 
$600 million as opposed to around $400 million that the State received 
under the old bill. I believe this allocation of highway trust money to 
the development and construction of highways is appropriate. I would 
add that this is not taking from other Government programs. This is the 
allocation of highway trust money for highways. Uniquely, we are 
beginning to get to the place where we focus resources that we take 
from people who use the highways on the highways. That is a major 
benefit. Although, I would like to see a 100 percent return on 
Missouri's investments, I appreciate the advancements made over the 
last few days. Also, I am committed to working with the Budget 
Committee to see that these additional funds are offset so we can stay 
within the budget caps that were approved by this Congress last 
session.
  Regrettably, we were unable to resolve these issues and a number of 
other concerns during the First Session. In order to continue funding 
to the states for their highway needs, Senator Bond authored the six 
month extension plan while ensuring that Missouri receives its fair 
share of highway dollars. The six month extension is scheduled to end 
April 30, of this year. I have recently received word from the Missouri 
Department of Transportation that their last bidding process for road 
construction contracts will be in March.
  I would like to share with you some of the long term projects that 
are in jeopardy because of our failure to act expeditiously. These are 
all top priorities for the Missouri Department of Transportation. ``The 
replacement or rehabilitation of seven bridges on Interstate 70 in the 
St. Louis area. A new exit on Route 40 in St. Charles County to 
Chesterfield Airport Road.'' Here is a few not to far from my home in 
Southwest Missouri the, ``Widening to five lanes of Route 71 in Newton 
County. Rehabilitation of the Interstate 44 bridge at Route 50 in 
Franklin County. Widen and resurface 3 miles of Route 39 in Barry 
County.'' The list goes on.
  Mr. President, federal funds make up about seventy percent of all 
funding for road and bridge construction in Missouri. With seventy 
percent of the funds hanging in uncertainty the Department of 
Transportation must end the bidding process. As the State of Missouri 
stops issuing construction contracts, contractors stop asking their 
employees to come to work.
  In order to put this into perspective I would like to share with you 
an e-mail that I received from one of my constituents from St. Louis, 
Missouri. This constituent has been in the road construction industry 
for nearly thirty years. He writes,

       . . . We the construction workers, have always strived to 
     produce quality, on time projects. You, the U.S. Senate have 
     failed once again to provide those needed funds in any sort 
     of timely manor . . . I received a notice on January 22, 1998 
     that the Missouri Department of Transportation was going to 
     cancel all future lettings after March 1998. I wish I could 
     make you understand the devastating effect this will have on 
     the Missouri Construction Industry, it's workers and the many 
     related and non-related industries in our state.
       I was hoping to be contacting you regarding a better 
     allocation of those tax dollars back to Missouri to better 
     represent the amounts paid into the trust fund, I now find 
     myself doubting if there will be any authorization at all . . 
     .

  I do understand. I am grateful for the words of insight that I have 
received from my constituents.
  I quickly would like to address one more issue. This is the amendment 
that was voted on yesterday to take away State highway funds if they do 
not establish a blood alcohol content of .08 for drunk-driving 
violations. I opposed this amendment, not because I do not abhor drunk 
driving. Far too many of us have lost loved ones as a result of this 
tragedy. However, I believe States are in the best position to make the 
decision on the most effective way to eliminate drunk driving. The 
`stick' approach offered in the amendment was rejected by the 104th 
Congress, when we repealed the Federal speed limit. I believe the 
`carrot' approach, contained in the safety provisions of this bill--
which provides a .08 option--is the appropriate method to allow States 
the freedom to establish comprehensive programs to discourage drunk 
driving. That is why the National Governors Association, the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, 
and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials support the safety provisions contained in the bill, rather 
than the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey.
  The people of Missouri gave me the privilege of serving them in this 
body. We would be derelict in our responsibility to them and the people 
of this great country, if one person lost their job because of our 
failure to act. I urge the Senate to once again avert the continued 
loss of time to our families, the loss of funds to our states and the 
loss of jobs for our workers, and quickly pass a long term ISTEA bill.
  Mr. D'AMATO. 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. 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.

                          ____________________