[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.
____________________