[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1723-S1766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1173, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for construction of 
     highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill, with a modified 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (Amendment No. 1676).


                Amendment No. 1951 To Amendment No. 1676

       (Purpose: To make additional allocations, with an offset)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes 
     amendment numbered 1951 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       On page 136, after line 22, in the section added by Chafee 
     Amendment No. 1684 on page 18, between lines 19 and 20, 
     insert the following:
       (g) Additional Allocations.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003, after making apportionments and allocations under 
     sections 104 and 105(a) of title 23, United States Code, and 
     section 1102(c) of this Act, the Secretary shall allocate to 
     each of the following States the following amount specified 
     for the State:
       (A) Arizona: $7,016,000.
       (B) Indiana: $9,290,000.
       (C) Michigan: $11,158,000.
       (D) Oklahoma: $6,924,000.
       (E) South Carolina: $7,109,000.
       (F) Texas: $20,804,000.
       (G) Wisconsin: $7,699,000.
       (2) Eligible purposes.--Amounts allocated under paragraph 
     (1) shall be available for any purpose eligible for funding 
     under title 23, United States Code, or this Act.
       (3) Authorization of contract authority.--
       (A) In general.--There shall be available from the Highway 
     Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as 
     are necessary to carry out this subsection.
       (B) Contract authority.--Funds authorized under this 
     paragraph shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code.
       (4) Limitations.--
       (A) Applicability of obligation limitations.--Funds made 
     available under this subsection shall be subject to 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 118(e)(1) of that title.
       (B) Limitation on availability.--No obligation authority 
     shall be made available for any amounts authorized under this 
     subsection for any fiscal year for which any obligation 
     limitation established for Federal-aid highways is less than 
     the obligation limitation established for fiscal year 1998.
       On page 415, strike lines 10 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out sections 
     502, 507, 509, and 511 $98,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, 
     $31,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $34,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000, $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment that I have submitted would 
assist seven States--Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South 
Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. This assistance would be in addition to 
the increases already provided to these States in the Chafee amendment 
that the Senate adopted last week.
  The Chafee amendment provided allocations to the States in three 
categories--the Appalachian Regional Commission program, the density 
program, and the bonus program for donor States--to bring their minimum 
up to 91 cents on the dollar. Six of the seven States to be assisted by 
this proposal did not qualify for either the Appalachian Regional 
Commission program or the density program in the Chafee amendment. The 
other State--South Carolina--that would receive assistance under this 
proposal received only $1.4 million per year from the ARC program in 
the Chafee amendment. Thus, the proposal is to provide an additional 
amount to donor States that received no, or very little, money from the 
ARC and density programs in the Chafee amendment.
  The proposal is to take $70 million per year for 5 years--1999 
through 2003--from the Federal research program and distribute that 
amount among the seven States. Thirty percent of the new funds would be 
distributed equally among the States--$3 million per State--and 70 
percent would be distributed according to the share of payments to the 
trust fund in 1996.
  The States would be added to the density program, giving each State 
almost complete discretion in the use of the money. The research 
program is authorized at approximately $100 million per year in the 
underlying bill and would be reduced to approximately $30 million per 
year by the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a balancing amendment to make the 
bill fair to all regions of the country. When the committee took up the 
bill in the first place--actually there were several major bills--it 
was intended to represent different parts of the country. We in the 
committee melded these bills together. One is a donor States bill; one 
is a New England States, Eastern States, bill; one is a Western States 
bill.
  Because of the leadership of the chairman, Senator Chafee, as well as 
the composition of the committee, which is balanced, we came up with a 
very balanced bill. Now, balance is in the eyes of the beholder. When 
we finished, there were some States that felt that although treated 
fairly, they perhaps could have been treated more fairly.
  The effect of this bill is to make sure that all parts of the country 
are treated evenly, fairly. The effect of this amendment will help 
accomplish that. It will also help speed passage of this bill. It is my 
hope, and even expectation, that we can finish this bill today with the 
passage of this amendment, because the remaining business before the 
Senate is various amendments, matters that, as important as they are, 
are not as much of a consequence as this amendment, which is the one 
that has been worked out in the last couple, 3 days--actually last 
week, with the chairman and others and interested Senators.
  So I urge that this amendment be agreed to. It is going to speed 
passage of the bill and can get some highways built.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the managers of the 
bill. I support this amendment. We have worked very hard on it. It 
represents a step towards greater fairness for some donor States who 
did not receive any benefits from other parts of changes in this bill. 
It is a long road, still, towards fairness--from our perspective, I 
emphasize--but this represents a step along the road and could not have 
been made without the help of our good friends from Rhode Island and 
Montana. I want to thank them for that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to thank the very able 
distinguished Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S1724]]

  I say to the Senator, I appreciate his tenacity. It is always good to 
see a Senator who fights doggedly for his State, who works very hard to 
make sure that his State is not taken advantage of. In fact, I say to 
the Senate, and to the residents of Michigan, the very able Senator 
from Michigan adds new meaning to ``fighting like a pit bull.'' Every 
day, there is Senator Levin, making sure, ``Hey, what about Michigan?'' 
What about donor States and so forth?
  I am very appreciative of the very hard work of the Senator. It has 
helped make this a more balanced bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, those remarks were well-phrased by the 
distinguished ranking member of the full committee. I also want to 
include in that ``pit bull'' category, Senator Abraham. He, also, was 
right there. They were a team. They dogged us every step of the way.
  So Senator Abraham and Senator Levin both did outstanding work in 
connection with this legislation. I look forward to a nice, friendly, 
telephone call from the Governor of Michigan saying what wonderful 
things we have done for Michigan.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I want to 
commend the able managers for the manner in which they have handled 
this difficult situation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the very distinguished senior Senator for the 
kind remarks about what we did for South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1951) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. 1952

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the operation 
                    of longer combination vehicles)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1952 to amendment No. 
     1676.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in subtitle H of title I, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 18____. SENSE OF SENATE CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF 
                   LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) section 127(d) of title 23, United States Code, 
     contains a prohibition that took effect on June 1, 1991, 
     concerning the operation of certain longer combination 
     vehicles, including certain double-trailer and triple-trailer 
     trucks;
       (2) reports on the results of recent studies conducted by 
     the Federal Government describe, with respect to longer 
     combination vehicles--
       (A) problems with the adequacy of rearward amplification 
     braking;
       (B) the difficulty in making lane changes; and
       (C) speed differentials that occur while climbing or 
     accelerating; and
       (3) surveys of individuals in the United States demonstrate 
     that an overwhelming majority of residents of the United 
     States oppose the expanded use of longer combination 
     vehicles.
       (b) Longer Combination Vehicle Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``longer combination vehicle'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 127(d)(4) of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the prohibitions and restrictions under section 127(d) 
     of title 23, United States Code, as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, should not be amended so as to result 
     in any less restrictive prohibition or restriction.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to 
explain very briefly my amendment.
  This amendment simply says that the status quo regarding the 
operation of triple trailers--these are the long trucks with a cab and 
three trailers behind them--shall stay in place. States that currently 
allow the operation of triple trailers on certain roads within their 
own State restrictions can continue to allow them, but the operation of 
triples should not be expanded.
  Under the current Federal freeze enacted in ISTEA in 1991, triple 
trailers may not operate in any additional States on any routes on 
which they could not operate in 1991.
  Now I have no interest in getting into a debate on the statistical 
merits of triple trailers. Supporters of triples tell you they are 
perfectly safe, environmentally friendly, less damaging to the 
highways, and help keep consumer costs low. Supporters of triples will 
also tell you that the State requirements make them as safe or safer 
than other trailer operations.
  On the other hand, opponents of triple trailers will tell you they 
are unsafe for the drivers as well as other highway users, they damage 
roads, especially bridges, and they have little beneficial impact on 
consumer costs.
  As a Senator representing a State with the second and third largest 
rail hubs in the country, I can tell you railroads hate triples. As a 
Senator representing a State that allows triples on a small portion of 
roadways in the Kansas City and southwest Missouri areas, as home of 
the third largest trucking center in the country, I can tell you that 
trucking companies love them.
  As a Senator, as a driver, and as the father of a teenaged driver, I 
can tell you that triple trailers scare me to death. Triple trailers 
can be as long as 120 feet. They are as long as a 10-story building is 
tall. These trucks can weigh up to 64 tons. For comparison, the cars 
most of us drove to work this morning are about 14 to 15 feet long and 
only weigh 1 ton or so. The 120-foot triple trailer is equivalent of 
seven full-sized passenger cars end to end. Triple trailers require a 
full football field and a half to come to a stop. Anybody who has 
driven on a road with triples knows that triples can be intimidating.
  Let me be clear, I am a strong advocate and supporter of the trucking 
industry. I have said that Kansas City, MO, is the third largest 
trucking center in the country. Trucks based in Missouri move over 
200,000 tons of outbound freight and over 250,000 tons of inbound 
freight every day. Because of the hard work, dedication, and quality 
service that the trucking industry provides, because of the skill and 
the ability and the dedication of truck drivers, our lives are made 
easier, and truck drivers are generally among the very safest drivers 
on the road. I think all of us can tell many stories of assistance, 
accommodation, and courtesy by the drivers of trucks, but we have also 
heard from drivers of trucks that they are very much concerned about 
the safety of triple trailers.
  When I, along with the chairman and other members of this committee, 
first spoke of this amendment last fall, we were joined by truckers, 
independent operators, who have had experience with triple trailers and 
they told us some horrifying tales about the dangers and the 
difficulties of running a triple trailer. Triples are not the answer. 
Expanding their operation into areas where they are not now present is 
not the answer to anyone's question. Sometimes bigger is definitely not 
better.
  I ask the support of my colleagues that this body go on record saying 
that we will maintain the status quo, that we will not expand the 
ability of triples to go beyond those areas where they were operating 
and were grandfathered in in 1991.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Walter B. McCormick, chief executive officer of the American Trucking 
Association. They have questions about some of the language in the 
amendment. They wish to express their views. They do not feel that the 
studies which have been cited are accurate. They state that the 
continuation of the freeze is not inconsistent with our position.
  There being no objection, the letter has ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S1725]]


                                                 American Trucking


                                           Associations, Inc.,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 10, 1998.
     Hon. Chiristopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Earlier this year, Nevada Senator Harry 
     Reid proposed legislation that would have prohibited the 
     operation of triple-trailer trucks in the 16 states where 
     they currently operate. Over the course of several months, 
     Senator Reid modified his position and decided not to pursue 
     an outright ban on triples, but instead proposed a 
     comprehensive study on the safety, environmental, and 
     infrastructure impacts of triples and other longer 
     combination vehicles (``LCVs''). During the past week, he 
     announced that he would not offer this modified amendment 
     because, he said, he did not have the votes to pass it.
       On behalf of the American Trucking Associations, its 50 
     state associations, 14 conferences, and 35,000 members, I 
     want to express our appreciation to the United States Senate 
     for the tempered and considered approach that it has taken on 
     this issue. The fact of the matter is that triple-trailer 
     trucks and other LCVs have a very good safety record in the 
     states in which they operate. Yet, in spite of that record, 
     ATA is not seeking any expansion of triples authority in the 
     United States--authority which was frozen in 1991 with the 
     adoption of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act (``ISTEA'').
       In the next few days, Senators Bond, Chafee and Lautenberg 
     will be offering a Sense of the Senate resolution calling for 
     a continuation of the 1991 freeze. We do not oppose this 
     resolution. As previously stated, we are not seeking an 
     expansion of the freeze. There is not provision in the 
     resolution that would have any impact or repealing the 
     freeze. There is also no provision in the resolution that 
     would prohibit the operation of triples and LCVs in the 
     states where they currently operate. Hence, the Bond-Chafee-
     Lautenberg Sense of the Senate resolution, which calls for a 
     continuation of the freeze, is not inconsistent with our 
     position.
       Nevertheless, we are concerned by some of the language in 
     the ``findings'' section of the resolution, which could be 
     read to suggest that triple-trailer operations are unsafe. We 
     stand by our position that triples are indeed safe. And, as a 
     majority of Senators have recognized over the past several 
     weeks, the safety record of triple-trailer trucks and other 
     LCVs does not warrant their prohibition in the states where 
     they currently operate.
       Therefore, as this resolution moves forward, we would hope 
     that our non-opposition would not be read as an endorsement 
     of any specific language in the resolution.
           Sincerely,

                                     Walter B. McCormick, Jr.,

                                                     President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as co-sponsor of this amendment and 
author of the original freeze on longer combination vehicles in the 
first ISTEA in 1991, I strongly support maintaining this freeze. By 
adopting this amendment, the Senate will declare loudly and clearly, 
that the freeze should not be weakened with more exemptions.
  Six years ago, Congress recognized the need to stop the growing 
presence of big rig trucks on our roads. We included in ISTEA a 
provision I authored that froze the lawful operation of LCVs to only 
those routes where they had been operating up until that time. It was 
the right thing to do then and it's the right thing to do now.
  We, as Members of Congress, have a duty to actively ensure the safety 
of all our Nation's roads, not just the roads in our individual States. 
By allowing monster trucks to terrorize our highways are we not failing 
to fulfill that duty?
  LCVs can be as long as 123 feet (that's longer than a 737 jetliner) 
and can weigh up to 164 tons.
  If it's raining when one of these trucks passes you, the spray from 
its 32 sets of wheels can blind you for over a minute. That's a long 
time when you're driving at 55 miles an hour. It means you can't see 
anything for over a mile.
  LCVs pose extraordinary safety risks to other motorists.
  Quick lane changes can cause them to exhibit a ``crack-the-whip'' 
effect--throwing the last trailer into other traffic lanes, causing the 
vehicle to roll over, or causing the last trailer to rupture its 
connections with the truck. In addition, LCVs are big and slow, 
especially when they have to accelerate. Thus they create dangerous 
traffic hazards when they have to merge or change lanes.
  They also have difficulty maintaining speed on upgrades, and reducing 
speed and braking on downgrades. Speed differentials between trucks and 
other traffic of only 15 miles per hour are known to dramatically 
increase the risk of crashes, and speed differentials could be 
aggravated by the recent speed limit increases in many States.
  As a result of all these dangerous features, multi-trailer trucks are 
involved in much more serious crashes than single-unit trucks or small 
tractor-trailer combinations. In 1994, over 5,000 people in the U.S. 
lost their lives in big truck crashes, and more than 100,000 were 
injured. Although big rig trucks make up only 3 percent of all 
regulated vehicles, they are involved in 21 percent of all fatal multi-
vehicle crashes.
  Clearly these big rig trucks are a deadly menace.
  It's no wonder that of the over 42,000 people polled last summer, 87 
percent said they are opposed to permitting the use of even bigger 
trucks, and 91 percent said large trucks should not be allowed on roads 
other than major highways.
  Trucking companies are constantly pushing drivers to drive longer and 
longer hours and heavier and longer trucks to meet ever tighter 
deadlines. This is a trend that has to stop now.
  And if the safety risks these vehicles impose on everyone else wasn't 
enough, these big rigs also cause significant damage to our roads and 
bridges.
  On top of that, they don't even pay their fair share of costs. A 
recent study found that in virtually all truck classes, the heaviest 
vehicles pay considerably less in taxes than the costs they impose on 
our Nation's highway system. For example, LCVs registered at over 
100,000 pounds pay only about half their cost responsibility.
  Highway agencies are losing money every mile traveled by one of these 
vehicles. That will mean poorer roads, higher taxes, or both. To 
maintain road conditions States must turn to funds from other sources--
i.e., gas taxes paid by other motorists. This shifts the cost savings 
experienced by truck companies, who can hire fewer drivers if they use 
LCVs, onto other highway users.
  This is outrageous. Not only do other motorists get less return on 
their highway investment because they have to share the road with these 
life-threatening juggernauts, they also have to pay more for it.
  The least we can do is maintain the status quo and not let LCVs 
branch out onto roads they aren't already on now.
  I hope you'll join Senator Bond, Senator Reid and me in maintaining 
the freeze on LCVs.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution 
sponsored by Senator Bond to oppose less restrictive requirements for 
double- and triple-trailer trucks. The resolution states that existing 
prohibitions and restrictions on these vehicles should be retained.
  Mr. President, there are serious safety concerns associated with the 
operation of bigger trucks. Because of their instability, handling 
difficulties, and braking problems, bigger trucks cannot stop quickly 
to prevent accidents and cannot be controlled safely. Bigger truck also 
are disproportionately responsible for expensive damage to our roads 
and bridges that we all must pay to repair.
  I long have opposed the operation of bigger trucks in my home state 
of Connecticut. Traffic in Connecticut is too congested to allow these 
trucks, and the geography is too varied. On I-84 west of Hartford, for 
example, about 105,000 vehicles each day clog the highway, and traffic 
steadily is getting worse. Truck accidents on this stretch of road in 
the last year have been a cause of public concern. The last thing 
citizens of Connecticut need is even bigger trucks competing with cars 
here and on other crowded highways.
  Common sense alone tells us that these bigger trucks are not 
compatible with passenger vehicles. The public overwhelmingly agrees. 
Opinion polls show that the public consistently has opposed legalizing 
the use of bigger trucks. People find these vehicles intimidating and 
are very aware of the hazards associated with their operation.
  Mr. President, getting into a car exposes any one of us to the chance 
of an accident under the best of circumstances, and we know how many 
Americans are injured or killed in highway accidents. We do our best to 
protect ourselves on the road--for example by fastening our seat belts, 
by obeying traffic laws, and by refusing to ride with drivers who 
drink. With all the other risks we face on our increasing crowded 
roads, we surely do not

[[Page S1726]]

need the added hazards posed by bigger trucks. I enthusiastically 
support the Bond resolution for this reason.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  Now we all recognize trucks are essential to the Nation's economic 
health. There is no argument to that. But we believe allowing 
increasing the number of the larger trucks to operate on our highway is 
a dangerous way to increase productivity. Triple-trailer trucks impose, 
I believe, a triple threat to safety, to the environment, and to the 
highway infrastructure.
  This amendment is a sense of the Senate that we will stay as we are. 
That is what the underlying legislation does. It does not change what 
the States allow, or roads they are permitted to operate under now, and 
does not increase the ability to operate where they are not operating 
now. I am for that.
  I thank the Senator for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a freeze on the expansion of 
future triples. States that currently have triples can maintain them. I 
think that is a fair balance. A lot of us have problems with triples, 
basically the problems enunciated by the sponsor of this amendment.
  To repeal the current use of trailers, I think, would be unfair.
  I urge Senators to agree to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1952) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay it on the table;
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1953

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to implement 
   hazardous material transportation pilot programs for certain farm 
               service vehicles, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Hollings, 
I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Hollings, proposed an amendment numbered 1953 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

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

       On page 50, beginning with line 18, strike through line 14 
     on page 51 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3208. SPECIAL PERMITS, PILOT PROGRAMS, AND EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) Section 5117 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5117. Special permits, pilot programs, exemptions, and 
       exclusions'';

       (2) by striking ``2 years'' in subsection (a)(2) and 
     inserting ``4 years'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Authority to Carry Out Pilot Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     pilot programs to examine innovative approaches or 
     alternatives to regulations issued under this chapter for 
     private motor carriage in intrastate transportation of an 
     agricultural production material from--
       ``(A) a source of supply to a farm;
       ``(B) a farm to another farm;
       ``(C) a field to another field on a farm; or
       ``(D) a farm back to the source of supply.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary may not carry out a pilot 
     program under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that 
     the program would pose an undue risk to public health and 
     safety.
       ``(3) Safety levels.--In carrying out a pilot project under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall require, as a condition 
     of approval of the project, that the safety measures in the 
     project are designed to achieve a level of safety that is 
     equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that 
     would otherwise be achieved through compliance with the 
     standards prescribed under this chapter.
       ``(4) Termination of project.--The Secretary shall 
     immediately terminate any project entered into under this 
     subsection if the motor carrier or other entity to which it 
     applies fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
     pilot project or the Secretary determines that the project 
     has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained 
     before the project was initiated.
       ``(5) Nonapplication.--This subsection does not apply to 
     the application of regulations issued under this chapter to 
     vessels or aircraft.''.
       (b) Section 5119(c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Pending promulgation of regulations under this 
     subsection, States may participate in a program of uniform 
     forms and procedures recommended by the working group under 
     subsection (b).''.
       (c) The chapter analysis for chapter 51 is amended by 
     striking the item related to section 5117 and inserting the 
     following:

``5117. Special permits, pilot programs, exemptions, and exclusions.''.

       On page 129, beginning with line 1, strike through line 23 
     on page 133 and insert the following: shall not apply to any 
     driver of a utility service vehicle during an emergency 
     period of not more than 30 days declared by an elected 
     State or local government official under paragraph (2) in 
     the area covered by the declaration.
       ``(2) Declaration of Emergency.--The regulations described 
     in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) do not 
     apply to the driver of a utility service vehicle operated--
       ``(A) in the area covered by an emergency declaration under 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(B) for a period of not more than 30 days designated in 
     that declaration.

     issued by an elected State or local government official (or 
     jointly by elected officials of more than one State or local 
     government), after notice to the Regional Director of the 
     Federal Highway Administration with jurisdiction over the 
     area covered by the declaration.
       ``(3) Incident report.--Within 30 days after the end of the 
     declared emergency period the official who issued the 
     emergency declaration shall file with the Regional Director a 
     report of each safety-related incident or accident that 
     occurred during the emergency period involving--
       ``(A) a utility service vehicle driver to which the 
     declaration applied; or
       ``(B) a utility service vehicle to the driver of which the 
     declaration applied.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Driver of a utility service vehicle.--The term 
     `driver of a utility service vehicle' means any driver who is 
     considered to be a driver of a utility service vehicle for 
     purposes of section 345(a)(4) of the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).
       ``(B) Utility service vehicle.--The term `utility service 
     vehicle' has the meaning given that term in section 345(e)(6) 
     of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (49 
     U.S.C. 31136 note).''.
       (b) Continued Application of Safety and Maintenance 
     Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) may 
     not be construed--
       (A) to exempt any utility service vehicle from compliance 
     with any applicable provision of law relating to vehicle 
     mechanical safety, maintenance requirements, or inspections; 
     or
       (B) to exempt any driver of a utility service vehicle from 
     any applicable provision of law (including any regulation) 
     established for the issuance, maintenance, or periodic 
     renewal of a commercial driver's license for that driver.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) Commercial driver's license.--The term ``commercial 
     driver's license'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     31301(3) of title 49, United States Code.
       (B) Driver of a utility service vehicle.--The term ``driver 
     of a utility service vehicle'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 31502(e)(2)(A) of title 49, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a).
       (C) Regulation.--The term ``regulation'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 31132(6) of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (D) Utility service vehicle.--The term ``utility service 
     vehicle'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     345(e)(6) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
     1995 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the 
disposition of hazardous materials. It has been agreed to by both 
sides.
  Mr. President, as I stated last week during debate on the Commerce 
Committee's safety amendment, negotiations were ongoing to alter 
several special interest provisions that had been conditionally 
approved by the Committee when we approved the comprehensive safety 
amendment last October.
  One of the more difficult areas the Committee faced concerned the 
many requests we received to provide statutory exemptions for one 
industry or another from certain motor carrier safety rules. Exemptions 
were sought from Hours-of-Service regulations, Commercial Drivers 
License (CDL) requirements, and hazardous materials transportation 
regulations. Of course, these type of requests are not new. In fact, we 
face them every time Congress considers legislation affecting federal 
motor carrier safety policy.

[[Page S1727]]

  The Commerce Committee has worked to avoid any statutory exemptions 
or regulation carve outs for single industries. At the same time, we 
want to ensure there is a fair process by which all requests can be 
considered appropriately. This compromise amendment developed by 
Senators Hollings, Burns, Bryan, Gorton, Lott, and myself achieves 
these goals.
  In addition to the new process provided under the safety amendment 
adopted last week, which would permit the Secretary to examine 
innovative approaches or alternatives to certain rules, this amendment 
clarifies the Secretary may carry out similar pilot programs dealing 
with certain regulations impacting the carriage of agricultural 
production materials. This provision includes, however, specific 
criteria clearly stating that only projects that are designed to 
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the safety 
level provided through compliance with current regulatory standards are 
permitted.
  In addition, the amendment clarifies and improves the process for 
providing limited regulatory relief during times of emergencies for 
utility operators to better allow critical services to be carried out 
during times of emergencies.
  I want to thank Senators Hollings, Burns, Bryan, Gorton and Lott and 
their staffs for working in a bipartisan manner to achieve this 
compromise amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Senator Burns for 
his efforts in obtaining passage of the Utility Service Vehicle 
amendment to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 
Senator Burns' support and leadership on this issue has been 
instrumental in reaching an important compromise that provides state 
and local officials with much needed flexibility in emergency 
situations. Essentially, the emergency can be dealt with at the 
discretion of the appropriate local official who has first hand 
expertise in understanding the needs of their communities. More 
importantly, this clarification enhances public safety. It is our hope 
that the U.S. Department of Transportation will take advantage of the 
flexibility provided by this amendment and fully implement the 
transportation pilot programs authorized by this legislation. Again, I 
want to commend Senator Burns for his efforts in coordinating the 
bipartisan compromise needed to ensure that the public's well-being in 
emergency situations is fully protected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. This amendment is agreeable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1953) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1726

 (Purpose: To provide that demonstration projects shall be subject to 
   any limitation on obligations established by law that applies to 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send amendment numbered 1726 to the desk 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, and Mr. 
     Mack, Mr. Graham, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Kyl, 
     proposed an amendment numbered 1726 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       On page 41, line 11, insert ``(excluding demonstration 
     projects)'' after ``programs''.
       On page 41, line 16, insert ``(excluding demonstration 
     projects)'' after ``programs''.
       On page 44, strike line 5 and insert the following:
     date of enactment of this subparagraph).
       ``(3) Demonstration projects.--
       ``(A) Applicability of obligation limitations.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a demonstration 
     project shall be subject to any limitation on obligations 
     established by law that applies to Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction programs.
       ``(B) Maximum obligation level.--For each fiscal year, a 
     State may obligate for demonstration projects an amount of 
     the obligation authority for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs made available to the State for 
     the fiscal year that is not more than the product obtained by 
     multiplying--
       ``(i) the total of the sums made available for 
     demonstration projects in the State for the fiscal year; by
       ``(ii) the ratio that--

       ``(I) the total amount of the obligation authority for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (including demonstration projects) made available to the 
     State for the fiscal year; bears to
       ``(II) the total of the sums made available for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs (including 
     demonstration projects) that are apportioned or allocated to 
     the State for the fiscal year.

       ``(4) Definition of demonstration project.--In this 
     subsection, the term `demonstration project' means a 
     demonstration project or similar project (including any 
     project similar to a project authorized under any of sections 
     1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027)) that is funded from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     and authorized under--
       ``(A) the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
     of 1997; or
       ``(B) any law enacted after the date of enactment of that 
     Act.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Mack, Graham 
of Florida, Thurmond, Coats, Brownback, Kyl, and others, this amendment 
would require that any future highway demonstration projects be 
included under the annual obligation limitation.
  Let there be no question. I remain strongly opposed to so-called 
demonstration, high priority, and any other termed descriptions for 
earmarked projects. As I have done on previous occasions, I will again 
offer an amendment during this debate a Sense of the Senate Resolution, 
in opposition to any future demonstration earmarks in this 
reauthorization legislation.
  At the same time, I recognize the real possibility that Congress 
could, in its collective wisdom, continue to follow the same path it 
has in prior highway funding bills--that is, to authorize pork barrel 
projects. Despite the efforts of myself and many other members, the 
final ISTEA reauthorization bill coming out of Conference may very well 
include earmarks--earmarks for projects that in many cases aren't even 
considered necessary among the States' transportation priorities. 
Therefore, this amendment is an attempt to bring some semblance of 
equity should Congress fall back to the same old earmarking status quo.
  My colleagues may better appreciate the importance of this amendment 
by reviewing the history of previously enacted highway bills. In 1982, 
10 demos were authorized, costing a total of $362 million. In 1987, 152 
demo projects were created, costing a total of $1.4 billion. Then in 
1991, the mother lode of all demo project bills, ISTEA, was signed into 
law. 538 location-specific projects totaling $6.23 billion were 
created. Since 1982, that's a total of $8 billion in trust fund dollars 
that did not go out for general distribution to the states.
  For far too long, highway demonstration projects have received 
preferential funding treatment. These projects are essentially paid for 
separately, with states receiving demo project money on top of their 
annual highway program allocations.
  This treatment clearly distorts the allocation process because the 
earmarked projects are funded outside the overall federal aid to 
highways obligation ceiling. Again, this distorted demo allocation is 
outside the funding process established by the statutory formulas--
formulas that some of us will argue are already unfair to a number of 
states.
  Our amendment would require that any future, and I stress the word 
future, demonstration projects funded out of the highway trust fund be 
subtracted directly from a state's highway funding allocation.
  Contrary to the opinion our friends in the House like to push, not 
all of us

[[Page S1728]]

buy the idea that special projects benefit our states' and nation's 
transportation system. The GAO said that ``if demonstration projects 
were brought under the obligation limitation, all states would benefit 
from an increase in their flexibility to target annual obligations to 
programs and projects that were ready to go.''
  GAO further reported that the majority of states would have 
benefitted if the money provided under the guise of demos had been 
allocated according to the ISTEA formula. In one year GAO analyzed, it 
found that ``33 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 
would have received more obligation authority if demonstration projects 
were made subject to the obligation limitation.''
  The GAO said that ``if demonstration projects were brought under the 
obligation limitation, all states would benefit from an increase in 
their flexibility to target annual obligations to programs and projects 
that were ready to go.''
  Further, during DOT Secretary Slater's confirmation hearing last 
year, he forcefully expressed the Administration's opposition to 
demonstration projects. Secretary Slater said demonstration projects 
``take resources from the trust fund for general distribution.'' He 
went on to say that avoiding creation of new projects would add more 
money to the trust fund for general distribution purposes.

  Now, I recognize S. 1173 does not include new demos, and I commend 
the Chairman and Ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for holding firm to this position. However, I also realize 
that our House colleagues are not expected to adopt a similar course of 
action.
  Let's consider what is happening in the House and its efforts to 
reauthorize ISTEA. There are reports that more than 400 members in the 
House have placed requests for highway, bridge, or transit projects. Of 
course, they were also actively solicited to do so by the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the committee of jurisdiction. And I've been told 
these requests include more than 1,000 projects--requests that could 
total hundreds of millions of dollars, dollars that will be siphoned 
away from formula-driven state allocations and funneled to 
individually-designated state or local projects.
  In one committee print there's even a new funding item called 
``legislative discretionary projects.'' I wasn't aware we needed to set 
up a separate kitty for legislative, member-favored projects. How much 
would this new legislative discretionary account consume? My 
calculations indicate $9.07 billion. That is almost double the level 
earmarked in ISTEA, and the bill isn't even out of conference.
  This is offensive. And I'll do everything in my power to make sure 
that such outlandish action is not condoned by the Senate. However, in 
the event my efforts to entirely stop all new demo-type funding 
projects are not fully accepted by the conferees, we must ensure a 
safety valve is in place. The McCain/Mack/Graham/Thurmond/Coats/
Brownback/Kyl amendment is one such safety valve.
  Under our amendment, a state would be provided the authority to 
choose to fund a congressionally-favored highway, bypass, bridge, or 
another road project named in ISTEA II out of the money it receives 
annually. Simply put, our amendment would allow states to be the final 
arbitrator with respect to spending its federal funding resources on 
demonstration projects.
  In addition, our amendment will restore modest spending equity for 
states that have relatively little demonstration project funding. Why 
should states that don't happen to have members who champion pork-
barrel projects have their allocation reduced to pay for other states' 
earmarks? Simply put, they shouldn't.
  Earmarked demonstration projects subvert statewide and metropolitan 
planning processes to the extent that projects are advanced that might 
not have been chosen based on area needs, benefit-cost analysis, or 
other criteria. Our amendment will also guarantee a state's authority 
to control its highway spending authority.
  There are critical needs throughout our nation's transportation 
network. Clearly, states don't need Congress to micromanage and dictate 
their planning process. The traveling public certainly is not well 
served when Washington forces limited funding to be spent on 
unnecessary road projects.
  Three years ago, the Senate adopted my amendment to prohibit funding 
for ``future'' demo projects. The amendment passed by a vote of 75 to 
21. Last year, the Senate unanimously approved my Sense of the Senate 
Resolution to the Budget Resolution again expressing opposition to 
future demonstration projects. The Senate is on record for opposing new 
earmarks and we must remain on record.
  I remind my colleagues that $8 billion already has been siphoned away 
from the states' highway allocations. And donor states like Arizona and 
Florida and Indiana don't need to have any more of our gasoline tax 
dollars taken away in order to finance demonstration projects in donee 
states.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the McCain/Mack/Graham/
Thurmond/Coats/Brownback/Kyl amendment as a backstop to provide some 
needed sanity to the ISTEA II conference agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it's my understanding that the yeas and 
nays have been ordered on this amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That's correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment, No. 1726, be laid aside and be in order at a later time, 
regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. 1951

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I intend, in a moment here, to move 
forward with a couple of amendments. Before I do, I wanted to comment 
on the earlier action that was taken a little bit ago with regard to 
the manager's amendment pertaining to States, which was designed to 
provide a number of us who did not fit regionally within either the 
Appalachian Regional Commission qualifications or the density corridor 
qualifications with an opportunity to benefit from some of the unique 
additional dollars that have been made available through the earlier 
amendment that Senator Chafee offered.
  We have worked very closely with Senator Chafee and his staff, 
Senator Warner and his staff, and Senator Baucus and his staff to try 
to address some of these equity issues. I thank them for their ongoing 
patience and efforts to assist us. We, certainly, in Michigan--as I 
have spoken earlier during the discussions of this legislation, 
Michigan is a State that has been trying to gain more equity. I know we 
have been persistent, as both managers have indicated in previous 
conversations. We are being persistent for obvious reasons. But we do 
appreciate it, and I want to publicly acknowledge the cooperation we 
have received.
  I think the amendment that was agreed to today goes a long way in 
helping us to address those issues. We all want to have the best 
outcome, but we realize there are many other inconsistent viewpoints 
being expressed around the floor, and to help everybody is often 
difficult. I think the managers have gone the extra mile to address 
these things and I thank them.


                Amendment No. 1380 to Amendment No. 1676

     (Purpose: To provide for continuation of eligibility for the 
           International Bridge, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1380 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

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

[[Page S1729]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 309, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 18  .  INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE, SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN.

       The International Bridge Authority, or its successor 
     organization, shall be permitted to continue collecting tolls 
     for maintenance of, operation of, capital improvements to, 
     and future expansions to the International Bridge, Sault Ste. 
     Marie, Michigan, and its approaches, plaza areas, and 
     associated structures.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the International Bridge connects Sault 
Ste. Marie, Michigan with Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, providing a link 
for both the exchange of goods between the United States and Canada, as 
well as allowing commuters to traverse between these sister cities.
  Vehicle traffic averages over three million crossings a year, with 
commercial trucks increasing in the wake of NAFTA by 13 percent in the 
last year alone.
  U.S. Public Law 889 of 1940 authorized the State of Michigan, through 
the International Bridge Authority, to construct, maintain, and operate 
this toll bridge. The administration of this toll was specifically 
permitted by this act.
  However, the law also required that upon retiring the construction 
debt, the bridge would revert from the authority to the State of 
Michigan and the Province of Ontario. The debt from the original 
construction will be repaid in full in the year 2000. Negotiations are 
underway for the joint ownership treaty between Michigan and Ontario.
  The question is, however, what will happen to the toll when the debt 
is retired. It was previously believed that section 1012 of ISTEA 
resolved the toll issue at the federal level by specifying toll bridges 
could be eligible for federal funds. However, section 1012 covers only 
those crossings that have a toll agreement with the Federal Highway 
Administration and already fall under title 23.
  This cannot be applied, however, to the International Bridge. The 
International Bridge was financed with bonds independent of the Federal 
Highway Administration, and therefore instituted a toll agreement with 
the Federal Highway Administration.
  Because of this catch-22 situation in ISTEA, the International Bridge 
is therefore ineligible for federal funds under section 1012 of ISTEA, 
although similar toll bridges would be if they had financed the bridge 
through the FHWA.
  This becomes especially problematic as the bridge is expected to 
retire it's debt in 2000, and the bridge is turned over to Michigan and 
Ontario.
  Canada is not subject to this prohibition, and will continue to 
operate a toll after the debt is retired.
  For the United States to stop the toll on its side of the bridge 
after 2000 will place us in an unequal position vis-a-vis the 
Canadians, making negotiations for joint ownership more difficult.
  It will also deny the most secure funding source for maintenance, 
operations, and future capital improvements to the bridge.
  Finally, it will be nearly impossible to reestablish a toll once it 
has been discontinued, even if ostensibly for a short time.
  For those reasons, this amendment will try to address this anomaly 
and is needed to allow Michigan to more effectively enter into a new 
agreement with Ontario and cover the costs of the bridge during the 
transition.
  For those reasons, I believe the managers on both sides have cleared 
this amendment. I hope we can agree to it at this time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is also acceptable to this side. This 
enables Michigan to continue to collect a toll that it is not 
collecting. It basically continues to make the payments status quo. It 
is a good amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). If there is no more debate, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Michigan.
  The amendment (No. 1380 to Amendment No. 1676) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his 
kind comments about the work we did. He is right; he can clearly be 
labeled persistent, and he worked very hard on this. He represents his 
State with great vigor; I can testify to that. And he can be satisfied 
with what was accomplished here. So I congratulate him for the work he 
did.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his comments 
and, as I said earlier, for his many efforts.
  I would also like to offer an amendment to the committee amendment.


                Amendment No. 1955 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to credit for acquired 
                                 lands)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham), for himself, and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1955 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

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

       On page 139, strike lines 22 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) is obtained by the State or a unit of local 
     government in the State, without violation of Federal law;
       ``(B) is incorporated into the project;
       ``(C) is not land described in section 138; and
       ``(D) does not influence the environmental assessment of 
     the project, including--
       ``(i) the decision as to the need to construct the project;
       ``(ii) the consideration of alternatives; and
       ``(iii) the selection of a specific location.
       On page 140, strike line 15 and insert the following:
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``agency of a Federal, 
     State, or local government'' and inserting ``agency of the 
     Federal Government'';
       On page 140, strike line 20 and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       (c) Crediting of Contributions by Units of Local Government 
     Toward the State Share.--Section 323 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Crediting of Contributions by Units of Local 
     Government Toward the State Share.--A contribution by a unit 
     of local government of real property, funds, material, or a 
     service in connection with a project eligible for assistance 
     under this title shall be credited against the State share of 
     the project at the fair market value of the real property, 
     funds, material, or service.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 323 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 323. Donations and credits.''.

       (2) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking the item relating to section 108 and 
     inserting the following:

``108. Advance acquisition of real property.'';

     and
       (B) by striking the item relating to section 323 and 
     inserting the following:

``323. Donations and credits.''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, often times, as my State's Department of 
Transportation undertakes new highway projects, donations are offered 
in order to assist in the development of these projects.
  Up to now, these have been limited to those businesses, 
organizations, and individuals who believe the advancement of these 
projects will assist them.
  Their reasons could be that there will be economic growth resulting 
from this highway project that will directly benefit them, or that they 
wish to see a project develop in a certain direction that will be 
facilitated by the donation of this property, supplies or services.
  These donations can make the difference between whether or not the 
project is undertaken.
  Often times the amount of the federal funds are insufficient to 
complete the project, especially federally mandated projects.
  Because the value of the donation can be applied to the State's match 
requirement for federally funded projects, a donation like these can 
provide the funds necessary to not only meet the State's match, but 
provide the funds necessary to make up for insufficient federal funds.
  An example may better illustrate this point.
  A community in my state was designated for demonstration project to 
expand the capacity of a major artery through that city.

[[Page S1730]]

  However, the level of federal funding was only $15 million on a $25 
million project.
  The normal state match for a project like this, $3 million, would 
still leave the community $7 million short of completing this project.
  However, this community has also acquired over $6 million in property 
rights of way along the project corridor.
  By donating this project, and allowing the value of this property, 
which has since increased in value to about $9 million, to be applied 
to the State match, the State could not only save the state match 
requirement of $3 million for other high priority projects, but apply 
the remainder to the deficit in federal funds, thereby allowing the 
federal funds to finally be utilized.
  The benefits of allowing these donations was realized by the drafters 
of section 323 of title 23, U.S. Code, by allowing any donations of 
property, supplies, services, or funds by ``a person'' could apply to a 
State's match requirements.
  However, the experience in my state has been that the Department of 
Transportation has determined that a local unit of government does not 
fit the legal definition of a ``person.''
  I disagree with this interpretation, but that is the interpretation 
by the federal agency charged with executing these laws, and absent 
their reversing this interpretation, donations from these units of 
government cannot be fully leveraged for Michigan transportation needs.
  This could provide our states with significant increases in the 
highways dollars available.
  With just two examples of which I am aware of local units of 
government capable of donating property, goods, services or funds to 
complete highway projects, my state could save over $11 million in 
total project costs.
  These are funds that could be applied to other projects. So, in 
essence, these donations would be the same as increases in federal 
funding.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment in hopes 
that we can provide the equivalent of more money for our states, 
without having to actually spend more money.
  Therefore, the purpose of this amendment would be to correct this 
interpretation and to allow contributions made by local governments to 
be added to the group of contributions that have been already 
interpreted as counting toward a State match.
  I believe, again, this amendment has been agreed to on both sides. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is quite right; 
this amendment is acceptable at this time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Michigan.
  This amendment, which is very beneficial to States, and particularly 
local governments, frankly, is an extension of the provision in the 
National Highway System bill. When this is agreed to--and I think it 
will be--States, and particularly local governments, will be able to 
use land, or gravel, or building materials as ``in kind'' contributions 
for their State's match instead of cash. They can use other assets to 
meet that requirement. This will be particularly helpful for local 
communities that want to build bike paths, or some other similar use of 
State highway funds, which is provided for in law. If the local 
community comes up with the gravel, and the work efforts, that will be 
the match that will allow the Federal funds to then be used for either 
enhancement, like a bike path, or some other project allowed under the 
underlying bill.
  So I commend the Senator. This is an extension. It goes beyond what 
is currently allowed in the National Highway System legislation.
  I very much thank the Senator for bringing this to the Senate's 
attention and for building upon an idea which I think makes sense in 
the first place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1955) was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. 1956 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1956 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 309, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1247(d)) is amended by--
       (1) Striking ``The'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``(1) 
     The'';
       (2) By adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(2) Consistent with the terms and conditions imposed 
     under paragraph (1), the Surface Transportation Board shall 
     approve a proposal for interim trail use of a railroad right-
     of-way unless--
       ``(A) at least half of the units of local government 
     located within the rail corridor for which the interim trail 
     use is proposed pass a resolution opposing the proposed trail 
     use; and
       ``(B) the resolution is transmitted to the Surface 
     Transportation Board within the applicable time requirements 
     for rail line abandonment proceedings.
       ``(3) The limitation in paragraph (2) shall not apply if a 
     State has assumed responsibility for the management of such 
     right-of-way.''

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have been working with all parties 
involved on the majority side and the minority side, and with the 
various committees involved with the issue, regarding rails and trails. 
I understand that this amendment has been agreed to and will be 
accepted by all of the various people involved.
  Today I offer an amendment that will increase local input in 
community planning regarding recreational rail-trails. Today, while a 
railroad is in the process of petitioning to abandon railroad tracks, 
outside groups may take over that right of way--and the local 
government may have no say in the matter whatsoever. Railroads and 
private groups may make decisions as to how large portions of land are 
used, and property owners and local governments are not even consulted.
  Under current law, a right-of-way for a railroad that is about to be 
abandoned may be used to establish a recreational rail-trail, thereby 
preserving the rail corridor in the case that the right-of-way is 
needed in future. The decision making authority for establishing a 
rail-trail lies solely with the railroad, the Surface Transportation 
Board, and private groups advocating trail development. A fatal flaw is 
that there is no component for local community involvement, including 
the input of those who own property adjacent to railroad corridors and 
who are most directly affected by the change in use of the right-of-
way.
  The process of creating rail trails from old railroad lines begins 
when a railroad petitions the Surface Transportation Board to abandon a 
line. Normally, if the STB determines that a line may be abandoned, it 
issues the railroad a certificate of abandonment. However, under the 
National Trails System Act, once a railroad files a petition to abandon 
groups may suspend the abandonment by requesting to enter negotiations 
with the railroad to establish a trail. These trail groups may purchase 
the corridor or ``railbank'' it--in other words, convey the right-of-
way with the provision that it will return to the railroad if it 
resumes service in the future. If the trail group signs a statement of 
willingness to assume responsibility for the right of way, and it comes 
to an agreement with the railroad on the terms under which the land 
will be conveyed, then the Surface Transportation Board is obligated to 
allow the group to develop the rail corridor.

[[Page S1731]]

  This negotiation takes place not in the communities where the 
proposed trails are, but rather behind closed doors here in Washington. 
At no point is there an opportunity for meaningful citizen 
participation in making the determination of the best use of the land. 
Many community members have learned of proposed rail trails not by 
reading the newspaper or by attending a community meeting, but by 
looking in their backyards. This is wrong.
  The issue of rail trail development is an extremely divisive issue in 
Kansas--perhaps more so than in any other state in the country. One 
reason that this issue has become so inflammatory is because Kansas 
state law provides that ownership of an abandoned railroad right-of-way 
will revert to the original property owners. However, Federal law 
preempts Kansas State law and prevents property owners' rights to 
regain possession of the land where there is a group ready to establish 
a trail.
  Mr. President, my goal here is not to take sides in this emotionally 
charged issue. I empathize with private property owners who believe 
that trails give rise to trespassers and crime, and lower the value of 
their property. Moreover, I believe it is a valid assertion that trail 
development, where reversionary property rights exist, constitutes a 
taking of private property for which just compensation should be paid. 
In fact, this opinion was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 
November 1996. Private property owners have legitimate concerns.
  However, I also understand the beliefs of trail advocates, who view 
trail development as a means of economic growth and who strive to 
improve the quality of life for communities. My goal here is not to 
``kill railbanking.'' This amendment does not kill railbanking and does 
not impede the ability of groups to propose rail-trail projects during 
normal abandonment proceedings. In fact, I maintain that opposition to 
rail trails by property owners might not be so solidified if the 
property owners were more engaged in the decision making process. As it 
stands, the resentment they feel for having trail development forced 
upon them fuels their anger and strengthens their resolve to oppose 
both current and future trail development.
  My goal here, in fact, is to improve the process so that people on 
both sides of this issue will receive an equitable opportunity to air 
their views before any designation of a trail is made. This is not an 
issue of whether rail-trails are good or bad; it is an issue of whether 
it is the role of the federal government to engage in community 
planning. I contend that it is not. The federal government has 
authorized the development of trails on railroad rights of way, and I 
do not seek to dismantle that authorization. I simply believe that it 
should be at the discretion of the local government whether that 
authorization should be utilized.
  In fact, one of the hallmarks of the ISTEA legislation that we are 
debating today is that it through Metropolitan Planning Organizations 
it incorporates the concept of local involvement in transportation 
planning, which, prior to 1991, was largely absent from the federal 
program. I simply want to correct the disconnect that exists between 
provisions of the National Trails System Act and the philosophical 
underpinnings of the ISTEA legislation.
  Mr. President, I do not have an objection to the Rails to Trails 
program. In fact, my amendment does not limit rail-trail funding or 
prohibit rail-trails from being developed where they are wanted by the 
local community. I do, however, have an objection to a process whereby 
railroads, private groups, and federal bureaucrats can make sweeping 
land use decisions, while private property owners and local authorities 
are shut out. Let's improve that process by giving local governments a 
decision-making role.
  Mr. President, with that I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply to congratulate the 
Senator from Kansas on this amendment, which I hope will be accepted. I 
can attest that in my own State of New York this kind of difficulty has 
arisen. I think the amendment will have an important effect in bringing 
about agreed solutions as against agitated--how do I say--contested 
solutions.
  So I thank the Senator. If I could, I ask that I be added as a 
cosponsor, and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding this amendment has 
been worked out. I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I regret I 
must say that when we informed Senator Bumpers, who is the ranking 
member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the committee 
that has jurisdiction over this amendment, we were informed by his 
staff that he wanted to come over and look at exact language and make 
sure it was the same language that was agreed to. I do not expect that 
to, A, take long or, B, to be a problem. In fact, they told us they 
were on their way over about 10 minutes ago.
  We cannot clear it pending that resolution. I suggest to the 
chairman, perhaps if we lay this amendment aside, we can take up 
another amendment. But I expect it to be cleared very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kansas worked hard 
on this, and we have worked with him. I am absolutely confident that 
everything is all set here. Meanwhile, nonetheless, there is a request 
that has been made, so we will have to defer to that. What I suggest to 
the Senator is, let's set his amendment aside, and as soon as things 
get cleared--which I think will be momentarily--we will go right back 
to it.
  Before we do that, I have several points of clarification on the 
amendment allowing for the disapproval, by the Surface Transportation 
Board, of a railbanking request at least half of the local 
jurisdictions through which the rail corridor proposed for railbanking 
affirmatively oppose the request. Will the Senator from Kansas confirm 
my understanding of his amendment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be delighted to clarify the intent and content 
of my amendment for the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you. First, although it is not explicitly 
referenced in the wording of the amendment whether its terms would 
apply to rail corridors that already are railbanked, and which already 
have been transferred from the railroad to the railbanking agency, it 
is my understanding that your amendment does not apply to corridors 
where a notice or certificate of interim trail use under section 
1247(d) of title 23, United States Code, already has been issued by the 
Surface Transportation Board. The amendment only will be applied 
prospectively. Am I correct in my understanding?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. You are correct. The amendment will not affect any 
corridor for which a certificate or notice of interim trail use has 
been issued by the Surface Transportation Board prior to the date of 
enactment of this law.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you. Now, it is my understanding that this 
amendment does not, in any way, amend existing abandonment proceedings 
as regulated under the Interstate Commerce Act. Is that correct?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct. This amendment does not seek to 
encroach in any way, shape, or form, abandonment procedures established 
under the Interstate Commerce Act. Those procedures are entirely within 
the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board and the Senate 
Commerce Committee, as the authorizing agency overseeing these rules 
and procedures.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you for that clarification. It also is my 
understanding that the purpose of your amendment is to provide clear 
opportunities for local input into the railbanking process in instances 
where section 1247(d) of title 16 is being invoked by parties other 
than the states, U.S. territories, Commonwealth, and the District of 
Columbia?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, that is correct. The intent behind this amendment 
is to ensure that in instances

[[Page S1732]]

specified in the amendment, a forum can be created for local public 
dialogue with the Surface Transportation Board. Finally, I would add 
that we have worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle and with 
private interest groups including the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas 
Livestock Association, and the national Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Kansas is to provide clear opportunities for local input 
into the railbanking process where section 8(d) of the National Trails 
System Act is invoked. The National Trails System Act provides for the 
preservation of otherwise abandoned rail corridors through interim use 
as trails. In short, it has allowed railroads wishing to abandon a line 
to enter into a voluntary agreement with a trail-managing agency, to 
turn the abandoned right-of-way into a trail for bicycling, walking, 
snowmobiling, horseback riding and the like.
  Railbanking is a complex and sensitive issue that is in the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees. I am pleased 
that Senator Brownback has worked with the Chairman and ranking members 
of both of these committees and with the National Rails-to-Trails 
Conservancy to come to an agreement that does not limit the development 
of rail trails or detract from the good work done by the railbanking 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the manager of this bill, who 
has been extraordinarily patient with us in working this through. We 
have worked closely with Senator Bumpers' staff. It was several days 
working this out. It was our understanding they had no difficulty and 
they were in agreement with this language.
  I also thank the Senator from New York for his kind comments. This 
simply does provide for a modicum of local input, to try to provide 
some means for people locally to comment on this. It doesn't affect 
existing trails. That is why we proposed this.
  I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for all of his efforts, along 
with those of the Senator from Montana, too. I hope we can get this 
resolved within the next 10 minutes if possible. I will stay here on 
the floor, so maybe while we are considering this next amendment, we 
could get this resolved right after that, if that is at all possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I congratulate the Senator from Kansas. He has been very, 
very patient. I think it was about last week I said to him, ``You are 
next up.'' Then problems arose and problems arose and we could not get 
to it. Each time I had to go to him and say, ``We have to slip you back 
a little bit here.'' But he was very patient and helpful although, 
indeed, tenacious. I congratulate him for his theory, which is a good 
one. The local folks should be consulted on these matters. He has 
worked it out. I am confident all the problems are taken care of.
  I say to the Senator, if he is not here when we get the approval, 
with his approval I will just go ahead and urge the adoption of the 
amendment and get it agreed to, if that is agreeable to him.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do commend the Senator for his patience. 
I say to the Senator, we have again sent an urgent plea over to Senator 
Bumpers' office to make sure his staff comes over immediately. We made 
the request 10 or 12 minutes ago. Just 1 minute ago, I renewed the 
request to have the staff come over.
  The fact is, the more we talk about this and commend the Senator, the 
more likely we are going to kill two birds with one stone. If people 
realize what the Senator is doing, by that time maybe the staff will be 
over here to get this thing cleared. I do not see them yet. I don't see 
any problems, but I must honor the request by the Senator from Arkansas 
that we wait until his staff looks at the exact language.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the 
Brownback amendment adopted earlier today which proposes to alter the 
present rails-to-trails process. While I did not formally object to the 
unanimous consent approval of that amendment, I continue to hold 
serious reservations over it. Indeed, I believe the proposal warrants 
further analysis prior to enactment.
  I recognize the sponsor of the amendment has concerns over the 
current manner in which trails are established. However, I am concerned 
the amendment offers the potential to greatly impede the establishment 
of future trails.
  Let me be clear. I agree it is appropriate to consider the current 
railbanking structure. I further understand the sponsor's interest in 
ensuring involvement by the local-area governments during the process. 
That is an important consideration and, in fact, local governments as 
well as any interested persons already have the ability to participate 
in the process. However, they do not have the ability to veto an 
agreement reached at the end of the process. Similarly, no one has the 
ability to force a trail's establishment. There is a balance.
  The amendment adopted would prevent the establishment of a new trail 
if the majority of the local governments along the rail right-of-way 
pass a resolution opposing the proposed trail use. While that sounds 
reasonable at first glance, I believe the Congress needs to better 
understand how such a new requirement would be implemented efficiently.
  For example, I believe we must carefully consider any implementing 
difficulties likely to result with this amendment. How will it impact 
the work load of the Surface Transportation Board, the agency which 
holds jurisdiction over rail abandonment and rail banking matters? How 
is the STB to know what constitutes the majority of local governments? 
Further, how is this new process carried forward when only one 
community is along a proposed trail? Would that one local government 
have veto authority over a new trail?
  Mr. President, I strongly believe these and other considerations must 
be addressed as this legislation continues through conference. As 
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the STB, I am committed to 
further exploring this matter along with any and all anticipated 
effects of this amendment when we hold hearings later this month on the 
STB's reauthorization. I will work to ensure our findings are carefully 
considered during conference consideration.
  Mr. President, railbanking is a voluntary program requiring agreement 
between the railroad abandoning a line and a trail-managing agency--
most, which I understand, are local. I want to ensure that in an effort 
to improve the current process, we are not unintentionally jeopardizing 
future trails. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
important matter in the weeks ahead.


                Amendment No. 1911 To Amendment No. 1676

   (Purpose: To save lives and prevent injuries to children in motor 
     vehicles through an improved national, State, and local child 
                          protection program)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment 
1911, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself and 
     Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1911 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the March 9, 1998 edition of 
the Record.)


         Amendment No. 1911, As Modified, To Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this point I send to the desk a 
modification of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1911), as modified, is as follows:
       In section 410 of title 23, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 3101(g)(1)--
       (1) strike the section heading and insert the following:

     ``Sec. 410. Safety belts and occupant protection programs'';

       (2) in the first sentence, insert ``(a) In General.--'' 
     before ``The Secretary shall''; and

[[Page S1733]]

       (3) add at the end the following:
       ``(b) Child Occupant Protection Education Grants.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Covered child occupant protection education 
     program.--The term `covered child occupant protection 
     education program' means a program described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(D).
       ``(B) Covered state.--The term `covered State' means a 
     State that demonstrates the implementation of a program 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(D).
       ``(2) Child passenger education.--
       ``(A) Grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary may make a grant to a covered 
     State that submits an application, in such form and manner as 
     the Secretary may prescribe, that is approved by the 
     Secretary to carry out the activities specified in 
     subparagraph (B) through--

       ``(I) the covered child occupant protection program of the 
     State; and
       ``(II) at the option of the State, a grant program 
     established by the State to provide for the carrying out of 1 
     or more of the activities specified in subparagraph (B) by a 
     political subdivision of the State or an appropriate private 
     entity.

       ``(ii) Grant awards.--The Secretary may make a grant under 
     this subsection without regard to whether a covered State is 
     eligible to receive, or has received, a grant under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Funds provided to a State under a 
     grant under this subsection shall be used to implement child 
     restraint programs that--
       ``(i) are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to 
     children under the age of 9; and
       ``(ii) educate the public concerning--

       ``(I) all aspects of the proper installation of child 
     restraints using standard seatbelt hardware, supplemental 
     hardware, and modification devices (if needed), including 
     special installation techniques; and
       ``(II)(aa) appropriate child restraint design selection and 
     placement and; and
       ``(bb) harness threading and harness adjustment; and

       ``(iii) train and retrain child passenger safety 
     professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical 
     personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of 
     child restraint use.
       ``(C) Reports.--
       ``(i) In general.--The appropriate official of each State 
     that receives a grant under this subsection shall prepare, 
     and submit to the Secretary, an annual report for the period 
     covered by the grant.
       ``(ii) Requirements for reports.--A report described in 
     clause (i) shall--

       ``(I) contain such information as the Secretary may 
     require; and
       ``(II) at a minimum, describe the program activities 
     undertaken with the funds made available under the grant.

       ``(D) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1998, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare, and submit to Congress, a report on 
     the implementation of this subsection that includes a 
     description of the programs undertaken and materials 
     developed and distributed by the States that receive grants 
     under this subsection.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of 
     Transportation to carry out this subsection, $7,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.''.
       In the heading for section 410 of title 23, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 3101(g)(2), strike ``program'' 
     and insert ``programs''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about this 
amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Dodd and 
McCain. I believe this amendment will save many children's lives and 
prevent countless injuries.
  Last October, I introduced S. 1312, the Child Passenger Protection 
Act. This bill sought to provide $7.5 million to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation for each of the next two years for the purpose of 
awarding grants to State highway agencies and other public safety 
organizations which promote important safety information on the use of 
car seats. My amendment today, which has been cosponsored by my 
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is essentially identical to 
S.1312. We believe this amendment will encourage and expedite the 
dissemination of child safety seat information to parents and help save 
children's lives in the process.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the following 
alarming statistics. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of 
unintentional injury-related death among children ages 14 and under, 
accounting for more than 40 percent of all unintentional injury-related 
deaths. In 1995, nearly 1400 child occupants ages 14 and under died in 
motor vehicle crashes in this country. In 1996, more than 305,000 
children ages 14 and under were injured as occupants in motor vehicle-
related crashes.
  Because most motor vehicle safety features are designed for the 
comfort and protection of an adult-sized body, children are 
particularly at risk of death and injury during automobile crashes. 
However, child safety seats and safety belts, when installed and used 
correctly, can prevent injury and save lives. In fact, it is estimated 
that properly used child restraints in motor vehicles can reduce the 
chance of serious or fatal injury in a collision by a factor of 71% for 
infants and 54% for children ages 4 and under.
  Regrettably, Mr. President, results from regional child restraint 
clinics have indicated that currently between 70% and 90% of child 
occupant restraints are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused. 
Three weeks ago, in conjunction with Child Passenger Safety Week, a 
workshop was sponsored by local public safety officials in nearby 
Fairfax County, Virginia, to help educate parents on the proper 
installation and use of child safety restraints. According to a 
Washington, D.C. television affiliate that covered the event, of the 
113 child safety seats that were inspected, only 2 were installed 
correctly! That is less than 2%!
  Mr. President, as the parents of three small children, my wife Jane 
and I have struggled with making sure that each of our children is 
properly positioned and safely secured while riding in vehicles. This 
is an issue that is near and dear to our hearts. That is why Jane and I 
have joined with the SAFE KIDS coalition back in our state of Michigan, 
to work on this problem. What we've learned is this: understanding 
which seat is age- and size-appropriate for your child and knowing how 
to install that seat--and how to properly secure the child in that 
seat--can be very confusing for parents.
  The amendment offered today by myself, Senator Dodd and Senator 
McCair is designed to help eliminate much of that confusion. Our 
amendment would provide $7.5 million for each of the next two fiscal 
years to the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of 
awarding grants to State highway agencies and child passenger safety 
organizations who promote important safety information on the use of 
child safety seats.
  While national programs such as the Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety 
Campaign already exist to help instruct parents on the proper location 
for placing child safety seats in vehicles, there is currently no 
national program designed to instruct parents on how properly to 
install child safety seats or to secure children in those safety seats.
  This amendment will provide critical assistance for training public 
safety officials on the proper techniques for installing and using 
child safety seats while also providing invaluable public education 
through workshops, publications, and audio-visual aids.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, there is considerable--and mounting--
evidence concerning the high incidence of misuse of child safety seats 
and other restraint systems for children. There is also an incredibly 
compelling correlation between the improper use of child safety 
restraints in vehicles and an inordinately high rate of death and 
injury suffered by children in automobile crashes. Based on these 
factors, I believe it is imperative that we in Congress provide a 
relatively small amount of ``seed'' money to assist public safety 
officials, highway safety organizations, and child safety advocates in 
educating parents in the United States on the proper installation and 
use of safety seats and other restraints for children who are 
passengers in vehicles.
  As I said at the outset, the question is not whether such a program 
will save lives; the only question is how many young lives will it 
save.
  Mr. President, before I conclude, I would just like to acknowledge 
the role in this legislation played by Congresswoman Morella of 
Maryland, who introduced the original companion bill over in the other 
Chamber. She has been a leader in this area, and I look forward to 
working with her to keep this provision in the bill, as well as working 
with her in the future on other initiatives relating to child passenger 
safety.
  Mr. President, that said, let me also indicate very briefly the 
purpose of the modification which we entered here a few moments ago at 
the suggestion of Senator McCain.

[[Page S1734]]

  Basically, we have done three things. First, we modified the 
amendment so it conforms with the grant programs that are contained in 
the Commerce Committee's public safety provisions, specifically the new 
section 410 entitled ``Safety belts and occupant protection program.''
  My amendment will now establish a new supplemental grant under 
section 410, where States can get assistance for establishing programs 
aimed at improving the practices of parents and public safety officials 
when it comes to ensuring the safety of child occupants. The basic 
grant contained in the Commerce Committee's amendment provides 
incentives for States to pass tougher laws for dealing with parents who 
fail to adequately safeguard their children in vehicles. My amendment 
would assist in educating them so that punishment is less necessary.
  That said, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today along with my friend and 
colleague Senator Abraham to speak to this amendment that will help 
save lives and prevent injuries to our youngest children by improving 
education and awareness about child safety seats.
  Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injury-
related death to children ages 14 and under. Yet some 40 percent of 
kids are still riding unrestrained. And of the children who are buckled 
up, studies estimate that eight out of ten are restrained incorrectly. 
Each year more than 1,400 children die in automobile accidents, and an 
additional 280,000 are injured. Tragically, most of these injuries 
could have been prevented.
  The most proven way to protect our children is child safety seats. 
They reduce the risk of death by 69 percent for infants and 47 percent 
for toddlers. We must work to ensure that they are used at all times 
and used correctly.
  This amendment that we introduce today will provide $7.5 million to 
the Department of Transportation for the purpose of awarding grants to 
state highway agencies, as well as child safety organizations who 
promote important information on the use of child safety seats. The 
legislation will ultimately allow funds to be used to help parents 
become better informed on the best way to restrain and protect their 
children. This money may also enhance public education on car safety 
through workshops, publications, and audio-visual aides.
  This past June, Senator Abraham and I sponsored a resolution that 
allowed the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to use a small portion of the 
Capitol Hill grounds to conduct a car seat check-up event and launch a 
new national safety campaign. The initiative, SAFE KIDS BUCKLE-UP, was 
a joint project of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and the General 
Motors Corporation. Its purpose was to educate families about the 
importance of buckling up on every ride. This event and this initiative 
have been a success, but we need to do more to educate parents and 
public safety officials, not only on Capitol Hill, but in our 
communities.
  This legislation will put more resources at the disposal of the 
people in our towns and cities, so they may do a better job of 
educating others and raising awareness on this issue.
  Protecting our children is a critical national priority that deserves 
national attention. I applaud Senator Abraham for his work on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over most 
federal safety policies, I believe this amendment will be very 
beneficial to promoting the travel safety of our nation's youngsters.
  Last April, we held Car Safety Seat Check-Up Day in Arizona. Numerous 
safety officials--including Administrator Martinez, participated in 
this event. During this event, parents had the opportunity to have 
trained law enforcement officers show them how to properly install 
child safety seats in their automobiles to maximize the effectiveness 
of the life saving equipment. In addition to the child restraint 
instructions, literature was distributed on other vital highway safety 
issues, including seat belt use and airbags.
  I have continually urged NHTSA to take additional actions to improve 
the safety of children in motor vehicles. In that effort, public 
education is an important first step in addressing transportation 
safety concerns specific to young passengers. I am hopeful NHTSA's 
initiatives, coupled with the Abraham amendment, will greatly advance 
our efforts to promote child protection mechanisms.
  Mr. President, as this measure continues through the legislative 
process, I want to express my intentions to strongly champion this 
initiative during conference deliberations. In particular, I want to 
ensure the states that receive assistance under this new program are 
fully vested participants. Given the very limited funding resources we 
are authorizing for this important program, we need to do all we can to 
ensure these limited dollars go as far as possible. As such, I believe 
we should explore the merits of authorizing the Secretary to implement 
requirements for matching funds as a condition for eligibility.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have some good news and some bad news. 
The good news is that the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas 
has been cleared. The bad news is we have not yet checked with Commerce 
to make sure the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan is 
cleared. We have not yet heard from the Commerce Committee, the 
committee of jurisdiction. So I suggest to the manager of the bill, and 
to the proponent of the amendment, if he could withhold and have his 
set aside, we could take up the Brownback amendment and agree to it. I 
expect Senator Hollings and his staff will clear the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That is perfectly agreeable to this Senator. If someone 
wants to move to lay aside this amendment and move back to Senator 
Brownback's, that will be fine.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
Abraham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1956

  Mr. CHAFEE. We will proceed now to a vote on the Brownback amendment. 
That Brownback amendment is acceptable on this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is acceptable on this side as well.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1956) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, we are moving along and making good 
progress.


                Amendment No. 1957 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison from Texas, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. It is an amendment which has been cleared by both sides. 
It would allow a State at its discretion to spend up to one-fourth of 1 
percent of its funds allocated under the surface transportation program 
on initiatives to halt the evasion of motor fuel taxes. The U.S. 
Department of Transportation, which administers the motor fuel tax 
evasion program, has no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1957 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S1735]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 73, strike line 18 and insert the following:

     ``nance of the system.
       ``(8) In addition to funds allocated under this section, a 
     state may, at its discretion, expend up to one-fourth of one 
     percent of its annual federal-aid apportionments under 
     104(b)(3) on initiatives to halt the evasion of payment of 
     motor fuel taxes.''
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is this is acceptable to 
the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct; this is 
acceptable. Frankly, I think it is important to point out that there 
is, in some cases, an increase of fuel tax evasion. This amendment 
allows States to use a portion of their surface transportation funds to 
combat fuel tax evasion. So we are adding a new eligibility to surface 
transportation accounts.
  I mention that also in part because the whole point of this 
underlying bill is to give States more flexibility compared with the 
current law, and this provision, in fact, will add even more 
flexibility than that contained in the underlying bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1957) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1958 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and ask for its 
immediate consideration. The amendment has been cleared by both sides. 
It would allow for the application of anti-icing applications to be 
eligible for certain Federal aid highway funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Stevens, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1958 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Insert at the appropriate place:
       23 U.S.C. Section 144 is amended--(1) in each of 
     subsections (d) and (g)(3) by inserting after ``magnesium 
     acetate'' the following: ``or agriculturally derived, 
     environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing 
     and de-icing compositions''; and (2) in subsection (d) by 
     inserting ``or such anti-icing or de-icing composition'' 
     after ``such acetate''.
       23 U.S.C. Section 133(b)(1) is amended by inserting after 
     ``magnesium acetate'' the following: ``or agriculturally 
     derived, environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive 
     anti-icing and de-icing compositions''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1958) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from 
West Virginia. There are several additional amendments that will take 
but a few minutes. We wish to accommodate the senior Senator. Can he 
just acquaint the managers as to his desire?
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend. I have no desire for the floor.


                Amendment No. 1769 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of both Senators from Alaska and ask for its immediate consideration.
  This amendment, offered by Senators Murkowski and Stevens, eliminates 
the redundant provisions of the law by integrating the so-called major 
investment study, MIS, requirement into the overall transportation 
planning process.
  Under current law, States are required to conduct a major investment 
study when there are high-cost and high-impact transportation 
alternatives being considered. There have been many concerns raised 
that the MIS requirement duplicates other planning and project 
development processes already required under ISTEA.
  This amendment would eliminate only those elements of the MIS that 
are duplicative of other transportation planning requirements. It would 
integrate those elements of the MIS requirement which are not 
duplicated elsewhere in the law into the larger transportation planning 
process. This amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Murkowski, 
     for himself, and Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1769 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       On page 269, line 2, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       On page 278, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       (b) Redundant Metropolitan Transportation Planning 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that certain major investment 
     study requirements under section 450.318 of title 23, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, are redundant to the planning and 
     project development processes required under other provisions 
     in titles 23 and 49, United States Code.
       (2) Streamlining.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall streamline the Federal 
     transportation planning and NEPA decision process 
     requirements for all transportation improvements supported 
     with Federal surface transportation funds or requiring 
     Federal approvals, with the objective of reducing the number 
     of documents required and better integrating required 
     analyses and findings wherever possible.
       (B) Requirements.--The Secretary shall amend regulations as 
     appropriate and develop procedures to-
       (i) eliminate, within six months of the date of enactment 
     of this section, the major investment study under section 
     450.318 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, as a stand-
     alone requirement independent of other transportation 
     planning requirements, and integrate those components of the 
     major investment study procedure which are not duplicated 
     elsewhere with other transportation planning requirements, 
     provided that in integrating such requirements, the Secretary 
     shall not apply such requirements to any project which 
     previously would not have been subject to section 450.318 of 
     title 23, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (ii) eliminate stand-alone report requirements wherever 
     possible;
       (iii) prevent duplication by drawing on the products of the 
     planning process in the completion of all environmental and 
     other project development analyses;
       (iv) reduce project development time by achieving to the 
     maximum extent practicable a single public interest decision 
     process for Federal environmental analyses and clearances; 
     and
       (v) expedite and support all phases of decisionmaking by 
     encouraging and facilitating the early involvement of 
     metropolitan planning organizations, State departments of 
     transportation, transit operators, and Federal and State 
     environmental resource and permit agencies throughout the 
     decisionmaking process.
       (3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     affect the responsibility of the Secretary to conform review 
     requirements for transit projects under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to comparable requirements 
     under such Act applicable to highway projects.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my amendment on major investment study 
requirements for highway projects in metropolitan areas was cleared by 
the managers and adopted during today's debate, but I wanted to say a 
few words about it.
  Mr. President, regulations now require a major investment study for 
all large metropolitan projects. This requirement needlessly duplicates 
planning and study processes already required for such projects under 
other long range transportation planning efforts required in Title 23. 
The result is a significant slow-down in planning and project 
completion.
  In my home state, major projects in our largest city, Anchorage, have 
been frozen in place by this needless insistence on needless studies. 
This amendment directs the Secretary to adopt

[[Page S1736]]

regulations eliminating the Major Investment Study as a stand-alone 
requirement within six months, and to integrate any non-redundant and 
worthwhile portions of it into a new, streamlined transportation 
planning process that involves all concerned parties as early as 
possible in the planning and decision process.
  This is a very important step in alleviating needless red tape and 
confusion for metropolitan planners, and moving forward on some vital 
projects, and I appreciate the managers' help in resolving this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This is a red-tape buster. It is a good amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1769) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1838 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To improve the magnetic levitation transportation technology 
                          deployment program)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. Specter; the 
Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan; and the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Specter, 
     for himself, Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Santorum, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1838 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       On page 115, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(f) Project Selection.--
       ``(1) Pre-construction planning activities.--
       (A) Not later than 90 days after a deadline established by 
     the Secretary for the receipt of applications, the Secretary 
     shall evaluate the eligible projects in accordance with the 
     selection criteria and select 1 or more eligible projects to 
     receive financial assistance for pre-construction planning 
     activities, including--
       ``(i) preparation of feasibility studies, major investment 
     studies, and environmental impact statements and assessments 
     as are required under state law;
       ``(ii) pricing of the final design, engineering, and 
     construction activities proposed to be assisted under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(iii) such other activities as are necessary to provide 
     the Secretary with sufficient information to evaluate whether 
     a project should receive financial assistance for final 
     design, engineering, and construction activities under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Notwithstanding section (a)(1) of this section, 
     eligible project costs shall include the cost of pre-
     construction planning activities.
       ``(2) Final design, engineering, and construction 
     activities.--After completion of pre-construction planning 
     activities for all projects assisted under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall select 1 of the projects to receive financial 
     assistance for final design, engineering, and construction 
     activities.''

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that 
preconstruction costs and planning costs are included as eligible 
activities under the maglev program.
  The maglev program is one which the senior Senator from New York, Mr. 
Moynihan, has really been the driving force, and it is catching on in 
terms of interest all across America. I am pleased to submit this on 
behalf of those three Senators.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Virginia stated, the 
Senator from New York has been the leader in maglev. It is really 
incredible that this Nation is so far behind other countries. We are 
going to have it eventually in this country. It is too bad we did not 
have it earlier. This helps in that process. It is not additional 
money, but it does help the maglev program, and I accept the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in 
support of the amendment I have offered with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Moynihan and Santorum, which clarifies that pre-
construction planning activities are eligible for funding under Section 
1119 of the bill, which establishes a magnetic levitation 
transportation technology deployment program.
  I have long supported the concept of maglev systems, where through 
the use of magnetic levitation, the passenger cars are propelled above 
a steel and concrete guideway at speeds as high as 300 miles per hour. 
In January, 1998, I rode the maglev being developed by Thyssen in 
Lathen, Germany at 422 kilometers per hour and it was exhilarating to 
be in a kind of mass transit which goes so fast. I am committed to 
bringing this technology to Pennsylvania, where it will create 
thousands of manufacturing jobs for steelworkers and high tech firms. 
It would be a tremendous boon to the economy of every stop along the 
line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. People could go from Philadelphia 
to Pittsburgh in one and a half hours non-stop, revolutionizing our 
transportation system. Or, there would be intermediate stops in 
Harrisburg, Lewisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, and Greensburg, adding only 
about 40 minutes to the trip.
  Section 1119 of the pending bill reflects the provisions of the 
maglev funding bill introduced by Senator Moynihan, which I 
cosponsored, and would fund the capital costs associated with 1 maglev 
project chosen by the Secretary of Transportation. The bill includes 
$30 million in contract authority and more than $900 million in 
authorizations of appropriations for the outyears. However, in the 
absence of our amendment, the bill does not provide specific financial 
assistance for pre-construction planning activities.
  There are several States which have groups currently exploring the 
feasibility of maglev projects and which need federal assistance for 
pre-construction planning, feasibility studies, final design work, and 
environmental impact statements. States showing interest include 
California, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
  The Specter-Moynihan amendment amends the bill to clarify that pre-
construction planning activities are eligible project costs and that 
the Secretary may make grants to more than one maglev project for such 
pre-construction planning costs. Without such funds, it is unclear 
whether any project will be ready for the capital assistance envisioned 
in the current bill.
  Our amendment would make eligible for federal funds pre-construction 
planning activities include: (1) preparation of feasibility studies, 
major investment studies, and environmental impact statements and 
assessments as required by state law; (2) pricing of final design, 
engineering and construction activities; and (3) other activities 
necessary to provide the Secretary with sufficient information to 
evaluate whether the project should receive financial assistance for 
final design, engineering, and construction activities.
  I am particularly hopeful that this amendment will ultimately help 
MAGLEV, Inc., a nonprofit consortium in Pittsburgh, which has licensed 
the German technology and plans to build a state-of-the-art steel 
fabrication facility capable of constructing the steel guideways needed 
for a maglev system, which has the potential to create hundreds of jobs 
in the region. The first planned maglev system segment could be from 
Westmoreland County into downtown Pittsburgh and on to the Pittsburgh 
International Airport, at a projected cost of $1.3 billion.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this 
amendment is preserved in conference with the House and thank them for 
allowing it to be included in the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1838) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1959 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Campbell and Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S1737]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Campbell, 
     for himself, Mr. Gramm and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1959 to amendment No. 1676.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition on Lobbying Activities.--(1) No funds 
     authorized in this title shall be available for any activity 
     to build support for or against, or to influence the 
     formulation, or adoption of State or local legislation, 
     unless such activity is consistent with previously-existing 
     Federal mandates or incentive programs.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit officers or 
     employees of the United States or its departments or agencies 
     from testifying before any State or local legislative body 
     upon the invitation of such legislative body.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank the leaders of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee--Chairman Chafee, Senator 
Baucus, and Senator Warner--for working with us on this amendment, and 
I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, for offering 
this amendment with me.
  Our amendment will help address concerns that the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration has been actively lobbying state 
legislatures to enact state laws that are not consistent with any other 
federal mandate or incentive program. It has come to our attention, for 
example, that NHTSA has engaged in an active lobbying campaign to urge 
states to enact laws mandating that motorcycle riders wear helmets.
  Two years ago, during consideration of the National Highway System 
bill, Congress voted to repeal a section of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act that sanctioned States without mandatory 
motorcycle helmet laws. At that time, Congress determined that the 
issue of motorcycle safety was best left in the hands of State 
governments, and that the decision about whether or not to enact 
mandatory helmet laws was best left to State lawmakers.
  Since that time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) has actively engaged in a lobbying campaign to try to persuade 
State legislators to enact mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. According 
to the U.S. General Accounting Office, they sent letters, made phone 
calls, showed up at State hearings on motorcycle helmet laws and acted 
in a variety of ways to encourage States to enact mandatory helmet 
laws. Sometimes they have been invited to offer their technical 
expertise, and sometimes they have simply shown up to try to persuade 
State legislators to require motorcycle riders to wear helmets.
  NHTSA recently entered into a $149,000 contract to produce a media 
package designed to encourage States to enact mandatory helmet laws. 
This contract includes the production of a video and other promotional 
materials. I would like to quote from the description of the contract:

       The contractor shall produce a media package that includes 
     a 12 to 15 minute video presentation and complementary `white 
     paper' that presents the injury prevention and economic 
     benefits of enacting mandatory motorcycle helmet laws for all 
     riders. . . . While the primary audience will be state 
     legislators, the information contained in the video and 
     accompanying `white paper' can also be used by Federal, 
     state, and local safety officials, and injury prevention 
     groups who are working to replace existing, but ineffective, 
     helmet laws with stronger mandatory helmet use legislation. 
     This information will also be used to provide technical 
     assistance in order to defeat repeal efforts of existing 
     laws.

  Mr. President, I know that NHTSA engages in lobbying efforts on a 
number of safety issues and encourages States to enact laws and 
implement policies relating to a variety of highway safety issues. I do 
not oppose these activities, and our amendment does not prevent NHTSA 
from continuing to work with States to improve highway safety.
  With regard to motorcycle safety, however, NHTSA would do better by 
the American public if they were to encourage States to implement rider 
education and awareness programs, rather than concentrating their 
energy on encouraging States to enact mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.
  The evidence suggests that it is those States with the most 
comprehensive rider education programs that have the lowest accident 
and fatality rates--not the States with the toughest mandatory helmet 
laws.
  In 44 States, motorcycle riders pay for rider education programs. 
Since 1980, both motorcycle accidents and motorcycle fatalities have 
fallen from an all time high of 5,097 fatalities and 177,160 accidents 
to 2,221 fatalities and 73,432 accidents. Through safety training, over 
15 years, motorcyclists reduced accidents by 58 percent and fatalities 
by 56 percent.
  The job of NHTSA should be to encourage States to strengthen their 
motorcycle rider education programs--not to encourage States to 
restrict the freedoms of motorcycle riders by forcing them to wear 
helmets.
  I would like to quote briefly from a letter from the director of 
NHTSA, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, to a State legislator, discussing this 
issue. I believe this letter succinctly illustrates NHTSA's attitude 
toward motorcyclists. Dr. Martinez wrote in this letter dated June 17, 
1997, ``Like other preventable diseases, motorcycle riders can be 
vaccinated to prevent most head injuries by simply wearing a helmet.''
  Mr. President, motorcyclists are not diseased, and they should not be 
treated as though they are. The issue is not whether motorcycle riders 
ought to wear helmets. Of course they should.
  The question, however, is what is the appropriate Federal role in 
improving motorcycle safety? The question is whether the Federal 
government should mandate the use of motorcycle helmets, and whether 
the Federal government should actively try to persuade State 
governments to mandate the use of motorcycle helmets.
  Congress answered the first question two years ago when we repealed 
the penalties on States that did not have mandatory motorcycle helmet 
laws.
  Our amendment addresses the second question, and will redirect 
NHTSA's interest in improving motorcycle safety toward the promotion of 
rider education programs, and away from the misguided promotion of 
mandatory helmet laws.
  I again thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and Senator Campbell, who has been a leader in this issue. We 
worked together two years ago, along with a number of other senators, 
to repeal the motorcycle helmet mandate. He is here now, and I know he 
would like to comment on the intent of this amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the senator from Illinois, Ms. 
Moseley-Braun. She has been a leader on this issue and I have enjoyed 
working with her.
  Mr. President, I want to clarify the intent and effect of our 
amendment. It will not prohibit NHTSA from lobbying on behalf of 
tougher drunk driving laws, seat belt laws, or air bag requirements. In 
each of those cases, there are federal mandates or incentive programs 
designed and in place. It would also not prohibit NHTSA from lobbying 
on behalf of improved motorcycle safety. In fact, we would hope that 
NHTSA would engage in more activities designed to improve motorcycle 
safety and education programs.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, my colleague from Colorado just 
made an important point. We would encourage NHTSA to work with state 
governments to improve motorcycle safety and education programs, to 
work with them on accident prevention, on rider education, and on 
driver awareness campaigns. Our amendment is simply designed to ensure 
that NHTSA's efforts on behalf of motorcycle safety are no longer one-
sided, and are no longer in conflict with the stated intent of 
Congress, which was to leave the decision of whether to enact mandatory 
motorcycle helmet laws entirely to state legislatures.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for 
that clarification, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies that funds 
provided under this bill shall not--I repeat, shall not--be used by the 
Department of Transportation for lobbying activities unless those 
activities are consistent with existing Federal programs.

[[Page S1738]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1959) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Moseley-Braun be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. MOYNIHAN. 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. 1838

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senator Specter, for himself and the 
Senator from New York, submitted amendment No. 1838. I ask that that 
now be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has already been agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. There are just some days you have nothing but luck 
around here. Might I just thank the managers for having agreed to the 
amendment. I am sure Senator Specter would want to be associated with 
this. I make the point for the record that in our present legislation, 
the Secretary of Transportation is directed to choose one maglev 
project to proceed.
  Senator Specter and I feel that there is no reason we should not have 
more than one, if that makes sense. If there are alternative 
engineering techniques that should be tested, the Secretary agrees more 
than one is the way to proceed in an experimental mode.
  I note, sir, that magnetic levitation was invented on the Bronx-
Whitestone Bridge in February of 1960. A nuclear engineer by the name 
of Powell, working at Brookhaven, was on his way back to MIT from a 
visit, and between the time the car slowed down in that ``permanent'' 
traffic jam and the time he paid his toll, he thought up maglev.
  The Germans are now in the process of building a route from Hamburg 
to Berlin, which will be open in 2005 and make the trip in 55, 58 
minutes. The Japanese have much the same technology. We have nothing. 
In ISTEA I we authorized $1 billion for this newest mode of 
transportation since the airplane. It is an extraordinary phenomenon. 
It travels easily at 270 miles an hour, will go to 350--no friction, no 
exhaust. We invented it; the Germans and the Japanese are building it.
  In the 6 years of ISTEA, with the $1 billion authorized, no Secretary 
of Transportation took any effort, any energy, any initiative. That is 
a formula for failure, failure in Government. We hope that this will 
not continue. We have authorized an equal amount in this bill, but we 
had better pull up our socks here or we are going to find ourselves 
with the most important transportation technology of the next century 
manufactured elsewhere--important here.
  I just add, because the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia is on the floor, that this type of transportation is uniquely 
suited for the generation of electricity and powerplants that is then 
distributed along the system. It does not have to--you do not have your 
powerplant within the train or within the car or within the plane. It 
is simply electricity moving along magnets--elemental. Simple as a 
thing can be, a great American invention so far ignored by our 
Department of Transportation, which I am sorry to say is still in the 
four-lane highway mode and does not seem to be able to get out of it.
  But that is a personal view. I do not want to associate it with 
Senator Specter--just mine.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the managers of the bill.
  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. WARNER. 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. 1960 To Amendment No. 1676

    (Purpose: To give preference under the Interstate 4R and bridge 
discretionary program to States that are bordered by 2 navigable rivers 
 that each comprise at least 10 percent of the boundary of the State, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus and myself.
  This amendment addresses a number of issues which, in the judgment of 
the three principal managers, strengthen this bill. It primarily 
relates to the I-4R and bridge discretionary program, Indian roads, 
research activities, and other very significant issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 1960 to 
     amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. My understanding is it is acceptable.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on this side I do accept this amendment. 
Frankly, this is another one of those that just makes the bill more 
fair. And it is a good idea.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1960) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1961 To Amendment No. 1676

    (Purpose: To provide that a State with respect to which certain 
 conditions are met shall be eligible for the funds made available to 
  carry out the high density transportation program that remain after 
each State that meets the primary eligibility criteria for the program 
               has received the minimum amount of funds)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Levin and Senator Abraham relating to the density program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Levin, for 
     himself and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 1961.

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

       On page 136, after line 22, in the section added by Chafee 
     Amendment No. 1684 on page 13, between lines 9 and 10, insert 
     the following:
       (6) Additional eligible states.--In addition to States that 
     meet the eligibility criteria under paragraph (3), a State 
     with respect to which the following conditions are met shall 
     also be eligible for the funds made available to carry out 
     the program that remain after each State that meets the 
     eligibility criteria under paragraph (3) has received the 
     minimum amount of funds specified in paragraph (4)(A)(i):
       (A) Population density.--The population density of the 
     State is greater than 161 individuals per square mile.
       (B) Vehicle miles traveled.--The amount determined for the 
     State under paragraph (2)(A) with respect to the factor 
     described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) is greater than the 
     national average with respect to the factor determined under 
     paragraph (2)(B).
       (C) Urban federal-aid lane miles.--The ratio that--
       (i) the total lane miles on Federal-aid highways in urban 
     areas in the State; bears to
       (ii) the total lane miles on all Federal-aid highways in 
     the State;

     is greater than or equal to 0.26.
       (D) Apportionments per capita.--The amount determined for 
     the State with respect to the factor described in paragraph

[[Page S1739]]

     (2)(A)(iv) is less than 85 percent of the national average 
     with respect to the factor determined under paragraph (2)(B).
       On page 136, after line 22, in the section added by Chafee 
     Amendment No. 1684--
       (1) on page 13, line 10, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)'';
       (2) on page 13, line 14, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''; 
     and
       (3) on page 14, line 1, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment just expands the 
eligibility of States under the density program. It clarifies the 
conditions States are required to meet to be eligible for the program. 
I understand this is acceptable on this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1961) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.


                Amendment No. 1962 To Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To provide additional uses for the payment by AmTrak to non-
                             AmTrak States)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Daschle, for 
     himself, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1962 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the title entitled ``Revenue'', add the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED EXPENSES AVAILABLE TO 
                   NONAMTRAK STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 977(e)(1)(B) of the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997 (defining qualified expenses) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii) and all 
     that follows through ``clauses (i) and (iv).'', and
       (2) by adding after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) capital expenditures related to State-owned rail 
     operations in the State,
       ``(v) any project that is eligible to receive funding under 
     section 5309, 5310, or 5311 of title 49, United States Code,
       ``(vi) any project that is eligible to receive funding 
     under section 130 or 152 of title 23, United States Code,
       ``(vii) the upgrading and maintenance of intercity primary 
     and rural air service facilities, and the purchase of 
     intercity air service between primary and rural airports and 
     regional hubs,
       ``(viii) the provision of passenger ferryboat service 
     within the State, and
       ``(ix) the payment of interest and principal on obligations 
     incurred for such acquisition, upgrading, maintenance, 
     purchase, expenditures, provision, and projects.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Congress last year approved a $2.3 
billion tax program primarily to finance capital improvements for 
Amtrak. This amendment applies to that legislation, which was part of 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Under the able and distinguished leadership of the Chairman of the 
Finance Committee [Mr. Roth] and the Ranking Member [Mr. Moynihan], the 
law wisely set aside 1 percent of the total tax benefit for each state 
with no Amtrak service, which amounts to $23 million. The 6 states 
currently lacking Amtrak service are South Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, 
Maine, Alaska and Hawaii. However, the law limited the use of those 
funds by non-Amtrak states to inter-city passenger rail or bus service 
capital improvements and maintenance, or the purchase of inter-city 
passenger rail services from the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation.
  This formulation presented real problems for states like South 
Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii and some of the other non-Amtrak states that 
have no passenger rail service and only limited inter-city bus service. 
Due to these limitations, this otherwise valuable funding would not 
significantly benefit our states, nor could they wisely invest funds in 
such service.
  Our amendment would expand the eligible uses of funding provided to 
non-Amtrak states under this provision to include the expenditure of 
such funds for transit, rail and highway safety, state-owned rail 
lines, small rural air service facilities, and passenger ferryboat 
service. These modes of transportation provide a similar function in 
our states to the role played by Amtrak in the states it serves.
  None of these funds come from any other states, nor does our 
amendment authorize any additional funds for our states. It is 
completely budget-neutral. Rather, it simply expands the eligible uses 
of the funds that our states are already scheduled to receive by law.
  Mr. President, let me explain the types of programs our states could 
use these funds for under our amendment.
  First, it allows use of our funds for rural and public transportation 
projects that are eligible for funding under Sections 5309, 
discretionary transit-urban areas, 5310, transit capital for the 
elderly and handicapped, and 5311, rural transit capital and 
operations. Rural public transportation, a portion of which is inter-
city in nature in transporting elderly and disabled from small towns to 
larger cities for medical care, shopping and other purposes, as well as 
providing local nutritional needs and mobility, is extremely important 
and needed in South Dakota in order to deal with the vast aging 
population in a sparsely populated area. During FY 1996 in my state, 
rural public transportation operators provided 1,114,672 rides and 
traveled 2,102,414 miles transporting the elderly and disabled of which 
over 50% of the rides were for medical, employment and nutritional 
needs. However, only about two-thirds of the state currently has access 
to limited public transportation, and over half of the existing transit 
vehicles in the providers' fleets are older than 7 years or have over 
100,000 miles. Therefore this funding would address significant public 
transit needs.
  Second, it allows use of our funds for rail/highway crossing safety 
projects that are eligible for funding under Section 130 of Title 23. 
Only 219 out of 2025 of South Dakota's rail/highway crossings are 
signalized, and there is a tremendous unmet need to improve the safety 
of rail/highway crossings in the state.
  Third, it provides for capital expenditures for state-owned rail 
lines. This is extremely important for states like South Dakota, which 
made a major investment and currently owns many of the rail lines 
operating in the state in order to provide a core rail transportation 
system to benefit the state's agricultural economy. This is a very 
narrow class of operations. This special one time credit would be 
utilized only to upgrade state-owned railroads. In cases where states 
own railroad facilities, they were purchased by the state only as a 
last resort. The state took extraordinary measure to preserve a core 
level of rail transportation to protect the public interest and support 
the state's economy.
  South Dakota owns 635 miles of active trackage that was purchased 
from the bankrupt Milwaukee Railroad in the 1980's. The primary 
operation on this line is performed under an operating agreement 
between the South Dakota and the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad. 
Much of the state-owned rail line has been in place since it was 
originally constructed, and much of it is in sub-standard condition or 
is too lightweight to efficiently handle current railroad car weights. 
This funding would allow the state to upgrade its rail line to enhance 
movement of agriculture and natural resource products.
  Fourth, it expands the eligible use of the funds to hazard 
elimination safety projects that are eligible for funding under Section 
152 of Title 23. This funding would be used to implement safety 
improvements at locations on public roads where there is a documented 
high accident frequency. Projects eligible under this program include 
installation of traffic signals, traffic control signs, or guardrails; 
reconstruction of intersections, construction of turning lanes, 
climbing lanes, or passing lanes; flattening slopes, removing sharp 
curves, and other appropriate safety measures. This would reduce the 
potential for traffic accidents and save lives.
  Finally, at the request of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii 
[Mr. Inouye], the amendment permits use of the funds for passenger 
ferryboat service within any non-Amtrak state. This makes perfect sense 
for states like Hawaii and Alaska that rely on ferryboat

[[Page S1740]]

service in the same fashion that other states rely on Amtrak service.
  Mr. President, I thank the able Ranking Member on the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works [Mr. Baucus] for his assistance in moving 
this amendment, and the assistance of the distinguished Chairman [Mr. 
Chafee] for expediting its consideration.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment offered on 
behalf of Senator Daschle, Senator Thomas, and Senator Enzi. 
Essentially, it allows States that receive Amtrak money but States 
which have no Amtrak to be able to spend that money on light rail or 
rural rail service. That is the point of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable on this side. 
I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1962) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Inouye be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority 
leader and the Democratic leader, I make the following unanimous 
consent request. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order during the 
pendency of the Finance Committee amendment Senator Mack be recognized 
to offer an amendment in relation to repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax, 
and the amendment be considered under the following terms: 2 hours for 
debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, to be equally 
divided in the usual form; that no amendments be in order to the Mack 
amendment, or the language proposed to be stricken, prior to a vote in 
relation to the Mack amendment; and that following the conclusion or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to 
the Mack amendment or a motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The right to raise 
a point of order is preserved under this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  That was important on behalf of Members.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
underline that last point about the availability of a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1911, As Modified

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1911.
  Mr. President, earlier today I spoke at some length about this 
amendment which involved making dollars available for educational 
efforts to try to better inform families as to how to properly use 
child passenger safety seats. We discussed it at some length, and at 
that time it had not been cleared on both sides. It is my understanding 
that it now has. I hope we can agree to it at this juncture.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is agreeable to this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we checked with the Commerce Committee and 
the ranking member, and it is also cleared with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Michigan.
  The amendment (No. 1911), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the managers again for their 
working with us on this. Also, I would like to thank both the chairman 
and ranking member of the Commerce Committee for their help and 
cooperation on behalf of Senators McCain and Dodd.
  We appreciate very much its inclusion in the legislation. I think it 
is an important step in the right direction.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Drew Willison, 
a congressional fellow in my office, be extended floor privileges 
during the pendency of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1726

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to an amendment offered 
by my friend, the senior Senator from the State of Arizona, concerning 
what he refers to as ``demonstration projects.''
  I rise as someone who has served both in the House of Representatives 
and in this body, and am aware of demonstration projects that have been 
initiated in both the House of Representatives and in this body.
  First of all, we must acknowledge that the House is going to have 
demonstration projects in their bill. There is no question about that. 
They have had them in the past. They will have them in the future. As 
long as there is a House of Representatives, there will be 
demonstration projects. There is no chance that the House will pass a 
transportation bill--an ISTEA bill--without earmarks of individual 
Members' projects.
  The Senate, in its wisdom, has refused at the committee level to 
adopt such a procedure for the consideration of demonstration projects. 
I have stated in those committee meetings that I thought they were 
wrong. But I accept the will of the majority of the committee and have 
not talked at great length about that. But I don't think that we should 
merely defer to the House on this matter. It would appear that we will, 
before this procedure is all over, have in the Senate version of the 
bill projects that are referred to as ``demonstration projects.''
  The House has a procedure. These aren't just willy-nilly thrown into 
the bill. The House committee of jurisdiction required a 14-point 
checklist. They are filled out for each demonstration project before 
they would even consider it. Only a very few projects on that list in 
the House will ultimately be accepted for funding. If the original 
ISTEA legislation is any indication, well under 10 percent of the final 
dollar amount in the House will be earmarked for demonstration 
projects.
  I also say to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest 
respect--and we have worked very closely on a lot of different issues--
that I don't think that referring to these matters as ``glorified 
pork'' is doing anything to add any stature to this body or the other 
body.
  For example, in the State of Nevada--we are the fastest growing State 
in the Union--we have tremendous problems in the Las Vegas area. We 
have 300 new people, approximately, moving in there every day. We have 
all kinds of traffic problems because of that tremendous growth.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, and others within the sound of my 
voice, take for example, Hoover Dam. Hoover Dam is built over the 
Colorado River, which separates the States of Arizona and Nevada. The 
traffic that travels from Arizona into Nevada has to go over the 
bridge. For decades, they have said that is a security risk to this 
country and should be replaced. It has only gotten worse as years have 
gone by. We have now often times 5 to 7 miles of backups of cars 
waiting to get

[[Page S1741]]

over that bridge. It is not only dangerous and unsafe but also, because 
of the national importance of this dam, it is very insecure for 
purposes of terrorist attacks. We have authorized, Mr. President, a new 
bridge over the river to alleviate that traffic. That is going to have 
to come in some type of an earmark. It is going to cost $150 million. 
Somehow, because of the need to move commerce--not to Las Vegas but 
throughout the country--we are going to have to have something done 
about heavy traffic coming over that river. Commerce is being held up 
there, interstate commerce--trucks hauling goods from all over the 
country. We need to do something with the bridge over the river.
  Take, for example, what we refer to as the ``spaghetti bowl'' in Las 
Vegas, on I-15 and U.S. Highway 95 from Salt Lake to Reno, to the 
bridge, and to Boulder City. I have already indicated that we are the 
fastest growing State in the United States. This spaghetti bowl is 
holding up interstate commerce. Large trucks hauling all kinds of 
products simply can't move through that area because it is clogged. We 
have been very fortunate in that this interchange is going to be 
rebuilt. It is going to be rebuilt with earmarked funds. Now, maybe 
someday we would have done that anyway, but how many lives would have 
been lost and what would be the loss to productivity in not being able 
to move people through that part of the country? So it is good that we 
went ahead and did this.

  Carson City, NV, remains one of only a handful of State capitals in 
the United States that are not linked to an interstate system. An 
earmark in the original ISTEA bill funded the first leg of this 
critical link.
  Finally, we have a real problem bringing people between the States of 
California and Nevada. This used to be just a Nevada problem, until 
California came to the realization that commerce from California simply 
could not move through southern Nevada because it was clogged on I-15. 
We worked out a cooperative project with the States of California, 
Nevada, and Arizona. This interchange that sends traffic to all three 
States is now beginning to be replaced. This, again, was done with an 
earmark. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, something that 
benefits the country. It doesn't benefit Arizona more than Nevada, or 
California more than Nevada, or Arizona more than California. It 
benefits all three States. There is terrible congestion there. There is 
a lot more work that needs to be done on I-15 and along its entire 
route.
  As I have indicated, at some time, perhaps, these projects would have 
been funded. But what tragedies would have occurred had these projects 
not gone forward? In a State that is experiencing growth like Nevada or 
California, we have been able to move ahead on some of these projects 
more rapidly than we would have normally. Delivering critical needs and 
services promptly is what the people of this country expect. It has 
nothing to do with glorified pork.
  Not surprisingly, this year's list of House requests is filled with 
far more projects such as the ones that I have just described than some 
of the unusual projects described by my colleague from Arizona. We are 
talking about a relatively small amount of money here, and the projects 
that are funded in this manner are frequently of critical importance to 
the States or they would not be earmarked.
  Regarding the notion that these projects should count against the 
State's obligation limit, I would ask three questions:
  First, would the House ever agree with that? The answer is, 
obviously, no. We spoke today with the House Surface Transportation 
Committee. To say they reacted coolly, coldly, is an understatement. 
Instead of preparing for the inevitable day when demonstration projects 
both exist and are outside the obligation limit, we are, once again, 
hiding behind some type of rhetoric that has nothing to do with 
effectively preparing the conference's bill for the Senators.
  Second, how are we defining a demonstration project under this 
amendment? I feel very confident that the Senators from Maryland and 
Virginia are not eager to have the Woodrow Wilson Bridge count against 
their State's obligation limit. The bridge is federally owned, just 
like the bridge at Hoover Dam. Perhaps the State should be held 
harmless. I believe that is the case. But that argument can be made 
about any number of federally owned facilities; as example, Hoover Dam. 
The bridge between Nevada and Arizona has to be built. Should Nevada or 
Arizona be penalized as a result of that? Obviously, the answer is no.
  Third, we have to give our colleagues some credit. The members of the 
conference committee are charged with doing what they can to hammer out 
a bill that is acceptable to both bodies. This is a key point. 
Obviously, a State that gets a disproportionate share of demonstration 
projects is going to get less in the final bill. Is it always dollar 
for dollar? Of course not. But it needs to get past both Houses. 
Spreading largess one way or another is frequently the way we get a 
bill. We have to look at the process we have used to get the bill this 
close to completion. It is a tedious process, but it has worked well.
  Finally, I suggest to my friend from Arizona that if the Senate would 
be realistic, and we usually are, and we will be when the conference is 
completed, there will be demonstration projects.
  I suggest this amendment should not be something we just accept. I 
think we should vote against it. I know people are going to say, Why 
should I vote this way? Usually we knock it out in conference anyway. 
But I do not think we should be doing that. I think we should recognize 
this is not a good amendment. It is something unrealistic, for the 
points I mentioned, and they are that conference committee members will 
do their best to come up with a good bill, demonstration projects, by 
definition, are very difficult to come by--for example, the Hoover Dam 
Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge are two good examples--and, last, 
the House is never going to agree to this. So I think we should vote 
the right way and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. 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. 1963 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To provide for a committee amendment)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1963 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to send to the 
desk the Finance Committee's amendment to the pending legislation. The 
work of the Finance Committee complements the work undertaken by the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. In general, the Finance 
Committee amendment updates the current Tax Code provisions to 
correspond to the purposes of the pending legislation. There are 
several additional provisions contained in the Finance Committee 
amendment that I would like to highlight in my remarks today.
  In particular, the Finance Committee amendment extends the current 
expiration date of the highway fund excise taxes and the authority to 
spend revenue from the highway fund for 6 years. It also extends 
current law transfers of revenue on motorboat and small engine gasoline 
taxes from the highway fund to the aquatic resources trust fund for 6 
years.
  The Finance Committee amendment also extends the alternative fuels 
tax provision for 6 years. These provisions are extended at reduced 
rates. They are identical to the provisions that were included in the 
Senate version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  The Finance Committee amendment clarifies a provision relating to the

[[Page S1742]]

taxability of employer-provided transportation benefits. The amendment 
clarifies employees who have the choice of either receiving cash 
compensation or receiving one of three nontaxable transportation fringe 
benefits. The nontaxable transportation fringe benefits are employer-
provided parking, employer-provided transit passes and employer-
provided van pooling services. This provision would give all employees 
the flexibility to determine the type of employer-subsidized 
transportation benefit that they want to use or whether they want to 
receive cash instead of using these employer-provided benefits.
  This provision also provides that the value of tax-free employer-
provided transit passes and van pooling services would be increased 
from $65 per month to $100 per month in the year 2002. Both of these 
changes are offset by delaying the cost-of-living increase and the 
amount of tax-free employer-provided parking that would have been made 
in 1999.
  The Finance Committee also extends the highway trust fund 
expenditures authority through September 30, 2003. This provision is 
important because without it, States would not have access to highway 
trust fund monies.
  With regard to another issue, railroads are unfairly burdened under 
current law. They are required to pay a higher deficit reduction tax 
than other modes of transportation. The Finance Committee amendment 
helps to remedy this unfairness by repealing the $1.25 gallon deficit 
reduction rail diesel tax as of March 1, 1999.
  The committee amendment also clarifies the tax treatment of funds 
received under the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program. The 
Finance Committee amendment includes a proposal to allow public-private 
partnership to use tax-exempt bonds to fund highway toll roads and 
bridge construction projects.
  Finally, the amendment also includes language that would provide for 
a 2-year moratorium on the fuel terminal registration requirement 
concerning kerosene. Senator Chafee and Senator Nickles have worked 
hard to reach this compromise. It is their hope that the market will 
work properly to ensure the availability of both dyed and undyed 
kerosene. If not, then the provision would be implemented as originally 
enacted.
  The amendment includes a supplement through the technical explanation 
of the Finance Committee amendment that was printed in the 
Congressional Record on October 8, 1997. Mr. President, the Finance 
Committee amendment was approved on a voice vote. All members of the 
Finance Committee support the amendment. It is my hope that this Senate 
will proceed swiftly to enact this amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I rise in the spirit of the 
chairman's wish and the Senate's clear interest that we move ahead and 
get this work done. It is almost finished. This is an absolutely 
indispensable title. It provides the money for the programs that have 
been authorized so far.

  I will make two points. One is that the amendment was reported out of 
the Committee on Finance unanimously. Once again, the chairman has 
brought us to a bipartisan unanimous position, and I personally thank 
him for accepting the provision that gives equal treatment to mass 
transit commuters, as well as those who receive parking benefits from 
their employers.
  This is an excellent measure, Mr. President. It is not without 
certain serendipity that the managers of the underlying bill, the 
Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana, are also 
members of the Finance Committee.
  So we are here in perfect accord, and I hope we can proceed directly 
to approving this amendment, although I understand we have an agreement 
that an amendment will be offered shortly by the Senator from Florida.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to strongly support the 
amendment offered by the chairman of the Finance Committee which adds 
the revenue title to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1997. Along with extending the motor fuel excise taxes, this 
amendment includes several changes to the nation's tax laws that will 
further the goal of improving the quality of transportation in our 
country.
  I want to take a few moments to discuss a few of those provisions.


                 expansion of commuter choice benefits

  The Internal Revenue Code allows employers to provide parking or 
transit benefits to employees on a tax-free basis. These benefits are 
limited to parking valued at no more than 175 dollars per month and 
transit or commercial vanpool benefits valued at no more than 65 
dollars per month.
  Prior to this year, these tax exempt benefits had to be offered by an 
employer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That created a strong 
inducement for employees to drive to work, even in those instances 
where an employee would prefer alternative methods of commuting. Given 
the choice between free parking or nothing at all, most commuters will 
choose to drive to work and take advantage of the free parking.
  Last year's tax bill corrected this problem by giving employers 
flexibility in offering transportation benefits. Under that change, 
employers who want to offer employees a choice between free parking or 
a raise in salary can do so without jeopardizing the tax benefits for 
employees who want to keep their parking spaces.
  The Finance Committee amendment extends this flexibility to transit 
and vanpool benefits. Under this change, an employee now can choose 
between taxable cash compensation and tax-free transit or vanpool 
benefits. This puts transit benefits on a level playing field with 
employer-provided parking.


                    expand tax-free transit benefits

  In addition to providing flexibility in the provision of transit 
benefits, the Finance Committee amendment, as modified by Chairman 
Roth, increases the level of tax-free transit benefits.
  Currently, the tax code is tilted heavily in favor of commuters who 
drive to work. Up to $175 per month of parking benefits can be provided 
to an employee on a tax-free basis. That results in a tax savings of 
almost 600 dollars per year for a typical middle-income family working 
in a major metropolitan area of this country.
  Employees who commute to work by other means, however, are not 
provided commensurate tax benefits. The current limit for tax-free 
transit benefits is 65 dollars per month.
  The Finance Committee amendment begins to narrow this gap by 
increasing the amount of tax-free transit benefits to $100 beginning in 
the year 2002.


                highway infrastructure privatization act

  The Finance Committee amendment also includes a pilot program that 
will make it easier to finance public-private partnerships for the 
provision of transportation infrastructure projects. This proposal is 
modeled after legislation which I introduced last year along with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senators Warner, Moynihan, and Bond. Senators 
Boxer and Graham are also cosponsors of that bill.
  One needs only to venture a few blocks from here to see the terrible 
condition of many of the nation's roads and bridges. Regrettably, the 
United States faces a significant shortfall in funding for our highway 
and bridge infrastructure needs.
  This investment need comes at a time when we in Congress are 
desperately looking for ways to constrain federal spending to keep the 
budget balanced. State governments face similar budget pressures. It is 
incumbent upon us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most 
of limited resources to address significant needs.
  In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the 
responsibility of the government. Governments build, own and operate 
public highways, roads and bridges. In many other countries, however, 
the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate 
important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the 
private sector's role in major transportation projects offers 
opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient 
operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and 
technologies.
  To help meet the nation's infrastructure needs, we must take 
advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the 
private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing 
and operating highway facilities.

[[Page S1743]]

  A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the 
provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under 
current Federal tax law, highways built by government can be financed 
using tax-exempt debt, but those built by the private sector, or those 
with substantial private-sector participation, cannot. As a result, 
public/private partnerships for the provision of highway facilities are 
unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design, 
construction, and operation offered by such arrangements.
  To increase the amount of private sector participation in the 
provision of highway infrastructure, the tax code's bias towards public 
sector financing must be addressed.
  The Finance Committee amendment creates a pilot program aimed at 
encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation 
infrastructure needs for the 21st century. It makes tax exempt 
financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects. 
The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is 
limited to $15 billion.
  The 15 projects authorized under the program will be selected by the 
Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve 
the general public; be on public owned rights-of-way; revert to public 
ownership; and, come from a state's 20-year transportation plan. These 
criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a state or locality's 
broad transportation goals.
  The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the 
rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the 
bonds issued under the program will not count against a state's tax 
exempt volume cap.


         two-year delay on terminal dyeing mandate for kerosene

  Finally, I am pleased that the Finance Committee has worked with 
Senator Nickles and me on a compromise that delays the implementation 
of the terminal dyeing mandate for kerosene for 2 years. Coming from 
the Northeast, this is an important matter for me, and I think the 
chairman's proposal is a reasonable approach to a contentious issue.
  Last year's tax bill included a provision which required that 
kerosene used for nontaxable purposes be dyed to distinguish it from 
kerosene during the winter to prevent diesel fuel from congealing. As 
you may know, diesel used as a motor fuel is subject to the highway 
excise tax. When kerosene is mixed with diesel motor fuel, the excise 
tax applies to the kerosene added.
  In the Northeast, however, essentially the same diesel fuel is used 
as home heating oil. As home heating oil, diesel is not subject to the 
excise tax. Therefore, kerosene mixed with diesel that is destined for 
home heating oil use is also not taxed.
  When Congress decided to dye kerosene, there was considerable concern 
about whether terminals would invest in the equipment necessary to make 
sure dyed, nontaxable kerosene would be available for use in home 
heating oil. If terminals chose not to add this equipment, the only 
recourse would be for home heating oil dealers to purchase taxed 
kerosene and pass the cost along to home heating oil customers. 
Customers purchasing home heating oil on which tax has been paid would 
be eligible to file for a refund with the IRS, but you can imagine how 
cumbersome that would be for both the homeowner and the Service.
  So, when Congress imposed the dyeing regime, it also included a 
mandate that all terminals make dyed kerosene available. This mandate 
has proven to be burdensome on many terminal operators. Chairman Roth, 
Senator Nickles, and I were able to work out a compromise that delays 
that terminal dyeing mandate for 2 years. That will give Congress ample 
time to determine whether the market will accommodate the need for dyed 
kerosene without the mandate.
  I am confident that the marketplace will meet the demand for dyed 
kerosene in those areas where it is needed. However, if that does not 
turn out to be the case I can assure the Senate that I will fight to 
reimpose the terminal dyeing mandate so that home heating oil customers 
are not left out in the cold.


             amendment to correct the flow of tax revenues

  Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to correct a 
provision included in last year's Taxpayer Relief Act that could have 
dramatic effects on the highway program in the future. That provision, 
which granted those collecting highway taxes an unprecedented 75-day 
delay in depositing those taxes with the Federal Government, will 
affect future apportionment formulas used to distribute highway money 
to the States.
  This provision was not included in either the House or the Senate tax 
bills. Nevertheless, this measure was slipped into the conference 
agreement purportedly to make the path to a balanced budget by the year 
2002 more uniform. Now that we are on track to reach balance this year, 
the proposal included in last year's tax bill is no longer necessary.
  The provision allows those collecting excise taxes from July 15 
through September 30 of this year to hold onto that money and deposit 
it with the Federal Government no later than October 5, 1998. From a 
Federal budget standpoint, what this proposal does is shift highway tax 
revenue from the current fiscal year to the next fiscal year.
  Switching revenue from one year to another could affect the highway 
program because the State apportionment formulas use revenues collected 
from each of the States as the key factor. Senators may remember the 
contentious debate this body had in 1996 during consideration of the 
fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill when we attempted 
to correct an error made by the Department of Transportation in 
interpreting Treasury excise tax collection data. My amendment would 
have attempted to avoid a similar problem that may be caused by this 
excise tax deposit shift.
  The problem facing the Environment and Public Works Committee is that 
there is a strong likelihood that any problems created by this excise 
tax revenue shift will not be crop up until well after the damage is 
done. This special benefit--which I might add was also extended to the 
airlines on the collection of their excise taxes--will expire on 
October 5 of this year. The effect on the state allocation formulas 
will not appear, however, until the year 2000. At that point, there 
will be no way to undo the effect of the delay in receiving those 
receipts.
  I remain very concerned that this deposit shift will come back to 
haunt the Senate. I also believe that the only sure way to prevent that 
from occurring would be to repeal the provision that was included in 
last year's tax bill.
  Nevertheless, the chairman of the Finance Committee has convinced me 
that my amendment should be reviewed further, and I accept his opinion. 
Therefore, I will not offer my amendment at this time.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. MACK. 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. 1906 To Amendment No. 1963

(Purpose: To repeal the 4.3-cent transportation motor fuels excise tax 
  transferred to the Highway Trust Fund by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
         1997, effective on the date of enactment of this Act)

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, consistent with a prior UC agreement, I call 
up for consideration amendment No. 1906.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1906 to amendment No. 1963.

  Mr. MACK. 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 end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC. ____. REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT TRANSPORTATION MOTOR FUELS 
                   EXCISE TAX TRANSFERRED TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST 
                   FUND BY THE TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997.

       (a) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on gasoline and diesel 
     fuel) is

[[Page S1744]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Repeal of 4.3-Cent Transportation Motor Fuels Excise 
     Tax Transferred to the Highway Trust Fund by the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each rate of tax referred to in 
     paragraph (2) shall be reduced by 4.3 cents per gallon.
       ``(2) Rates of tax.--The rates of tax referred to in this 
     paragraph are the rates of tax otherwise applicable under--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(2)(A) (relating to gasoline and diesel 
     fuel),
       ``(B) sections 4091(b)(3)(A) and 4092(b)(2) (relating to 
     aviation fuel),
       ``(C) section 4042(b)(2)(C) (relating to fuel used on 
     inland waterways),
       ``(D) paragraph (1) or (2) of section 4041(a) (relating to 
     diesel fuel and special fuels),
       ``(E) section 4041(c)(3) (relating to gasoline used in 
     noncommercial aviation), and
       ``(F) section 4041(m)(1)(A)(i) (relating to certain 
     methanol or ethanol fuels).
       ``(3) Comparable treatment for compressed natural gas.--No 
     tax shall be imposed by section 4041(a)(3) on any sale or use 
     during the applicable period.
       ``(4) Comparable treatment under certain refund rules.--
     Each of the rates specified in sections 6421(f)(2)(B), 
     6421(f)(3)(B)(ii), 6427(b)(2)(A), 6427(l)(3)(B)(ii), and 
     6427(l)(4)(B) shall be reduced by 4.3 cents per gallon.
       ``(5) Coordination with mass transit account.--The rate of 
     tax specified in section 9503(e)(2) shall be reduced by .85 
     cent per gallon.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Floor Stock Refunds.--
       (1) In general.--If--
       (A) before the date of enactment of this Act, tax has been 
     imposed under section 4081 or 4091 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 on any liquid, and
       (B) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer and has 
     not been used and is intended for sale,

     there shall be credited or refunded (without interest) to the 
     person who paid such tax (hereafter in this subsection 
     referred to as the ``taxpayer'') an amount equal to the 
     excess of the tax paid by the taxpayer over the amount of 
     such tax which would be imposed on such liquid had the 
     taxable event occurred on such date.
       (2) Time for filing claims.--No credit or refund shall be 
     allowed or made under this subsection unless--
       (A) claim therefor is filed with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury before the date which is 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and
       (B) in any case where liquid is held by a dealer (other 
     than the taxpayer) on the date of enactment of this Act--
       (i) the dealer submits a request for refund or credit to 
     the taxpayer before the date which is 3 months after such 
     date, and
       (ii) the taxpayer has repaid or agreed to repay the amount 
     so claimed to such dealer or has obtained the written consent 
     of such dealer to the allowance of the credit or the making 
     of the refund.
       (3) Exception for fuel held in retail stocks.--No credit or 
     refund shall be allowed under this subsection with respect to 
     any liquid in retail stocks held at the place where intended 
     to be sold at retail.
       (4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the respective 
     meanings given to such terms by section 6412 of such Code; 
     except that the term ``dealer'' includes a producer.
       (5) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 of such Code shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.
       (c) Effective Date Contingent Upon Certification of Deficit 
     Neutrality.--
       (1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to ensure 
     that--
       (A) this section will become effective only if the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget (referred to in this 
     subsection as the ``Director'') certifies that this section 
     is deficit neutral;
       (B) discretionary spending limits are reduced to capture 
     the savings realized in devolving transportation functions to 
     the State level pursuant to this section; and
       (C) the tax reduction made by this section is not scored 
     under pay-as-you-go and does not inadvertently trigger a 
     sequestration.
       (2) Effective date contingency.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, this section shall take effect only 
     if--
       (A) the Director submits the report as required in 
     paragraph (3); and
       (B) the report contains a certification by the Director 
     that, based on the required estimates, the reduction in 
     discretionary outlays resulting from the reduction in 
     contract authority is at least as great as the reduction in 
     revenues for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2003.
       (3) OMB estimates and report.--
       (A) Requirements.--Not later than 5 calendar days after the 
     date of notification by the Secretary of any election 
     described in subsection (c), the Director shall--
       (i) estimate the net change in revenues resulting from this 
     section for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2003;
       (ii) estimate the net change in discretionary outlays 
     resulting from the reduction in contract authority under this 
     section for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2003;
       (iii) determine, based on those estimates, whether the 
     reduction in discretionary outlays is at least as great as 
     the reduction in revenues for each fiscal year through fiscal 
     year 2003; and
       (iv) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the 
     estimates and determination.
       (B) Applicable assumptions and guidelines.--
       (i) Revenue estimates.--The revenue estimates required 
     under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be predicated on the same 
     economic and technical assumptions and scorekeeping 
     guidelines that would be used for estimates made pursuant to 
     section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)).
       (ii) Outlay estimates.--The outlay estimates required under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be determined by comparing the 
     level of discretionary outlays resulting from this Act with 
     the corresponding level of discretionary outlays projected in 
     the baseline under section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907).
       (4) Conforming adjustment to discretionary spending 
     limits.--Upon compliance with the requirements specified in 
     paragraph (2), the Director shall adjust the adjusted 
     discretionary spending limits for each fiscal year through 
     fiscal year 2003 under section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 665(a)(2)) by the estimated 
     reductions in discretionary outlays under paragraph (1)(B).
       (5) Paygo interaction.--Upon compliance with the 
     requirements specified in paragraph (2), no changes in 
     revenues estimated to result from the enactment of this 
     section shall be counted for the purposes of section 252(d) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
Senator is recognized for 1 hour. There is also a Senator recognized 
for 1 hour in opposition.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. It calls 
for repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax, while ensuring deficit-neutrality 
through a corresponding reduction in overall spending caps. So the 
first point I want to make to my colleagues is that this is, in 
essence, budget neutral.
  In 1993, when President Clinton and a Democratic Congress raised the 
gas tax 4.3 cents, they did so for deficit reduction purposes. Again, I 
do not think I have to remind my colleagues it was a pretty contentious 
debate. The underlying bill ended up passing, I believe, by one vote. 
However, it seems clear now that this tax is no longer needed. All the 
estimates that we are receiving from many, many different sources would 
indicate that we are going to see surpluses out for many years to come. 
However, rather than to return this tax, the Congress is on the verge 
of retaining this tax for increased transportation spending, having 
succumbed to a multiyear campaign by the transportation industry.
  The industry vehemently maintains that the gas tax's user fee is paid 
by a consumer who believes gas taxes will be used for transportation 
purposes. However, this is simply not the case. Gas taxes being used 
for deficit reduction is not a unique event. What many do not know, or 
simply will not acknowledge, is that the gas tax was created for 
deficit reduction purposes, and for the first 20 years had been used 
for that purpose. It was for the same purpose that the 4.3-cent gas tax 
was enacted in 1993. However, this Congress is one that is committed to 
fiscal restraint and providing tax relief to America's working men and 
women. It is much different than the Congresses of the last several 
decades, which were all too willing to commit and spend taxpayers' 
dollars. It seems to me that this Congress ought to return to the 
taxpayer this now unnecessary deficit reduction gas tax, and, in so 
doing, we can provide tax relief directly to the men and women who need 
it most--America's working class who drive on our Nation's roads every 
day.
  This tax should be repealed. The American people were asked to 
contribute more money at the pump so that we might achieve a balanced 
budget. And we did. But nobody has gone back to the American people and 
asked them if their money can be kept for increased spending. It seems 
to me this is a question which ought to be asked. I am confident that 
almost all of us have heard from our States claiming that they need 
more transportation dollars. They have asked for more flexibility in 
spending their transportation dollars, and they have complained about 
the bureaucratic red tape which accompanies gas tax dollars funneled 
through Washington.

[[Page S1745]]

  Repeal of the 4.3 cents offers the Congress a way of meeting all of 
these goals. First, it keeps the faith with the taxpaying public by 
returning a deficit reduction tax which is no longer needed. Again, I 
remind everyone, there was a very strong debate about this, passing a 
4.3-cent gasoline tax for the purpose of deficit reduction. It was 
almost implied--in fact, I guess if I went back and pulled up the 
various speeches, I am sure that there were those who said, when there 
is, in fact, no longer a deficit, this tax will be repealed and 
returned to the taxpayer.

  Secondly, it gives States the opportunity to replace this tax with 
one of their own. This gives the taxpaying public ample opportunity to 
have their voices heard on the issue of whether this gas tax should be 
lowered again or kept in place for increased transportation spending.
  Finally, should the States and the respective taxpayers support using 
the gas tax for increased transportation spending, it would be free 
from Federal strings and available for the States' priorities, not 
Washington's. Estimates from transportation economists and several 
State secretaries of transportation suggest that without Federal 
interference, mandates, and restrictions, a State could get as much as 
20 to 40 percent more for their gas tax dollars.
  As a final point, according to data compiled by the Congressional 
Research Service, since 1990, two-thirds of all States have increased 
their own gas taxes. This clearly indicates that our Nation's States 
have the will and the ability to increase their own gas taxes should 
they need them and should their citizens choose to do so.
  So I say to my colleagues, let us repeal this 4.3-cent gas tax which 
we told the American people would be used to achieve a balanced budget. 
Let us give them a chance to consider, with their State legislators, 
whether they are willing to see this tax used for increased 
transportation spending.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator rising in opposition?
  Mr. WARNER. I do rise in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as an author of the underlying bill, 
before we had done such valuable work in the Senate to amend it, I 
would have to say, with the greatest respect to my colleague, while 
philosophically I align myself with his view of giving the States and 
the people of those States the greatest say over their tax dollars and 
the wisdom of having those dollars at their discretion--and if several 
States do go through the legislative process, putting a replacement tax 
on the books, there is a question and doubt about that, I am sure the 
Senator will agree with me--but with due respect, this amendment, were 
it to be adopted by the Senate, would be literally destructive of this 
bill and the work that the committee, under the leadership of the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member and myself, have provided 
these many, many months to get where we are.
  I think we have at long last, Mr. President, reconciled many, many 
differences to try and bring back a feeling of credibility in the 
principle of equity of distribution among the several States.
  The needs for the highway system are clearly in the minds of all 
Senators, as well as, I am sure, the Senator from Florida. There is no 
dispute there. So we are down here in the final hours of this bill now 
faced with an amendment which would, in my judgment, simply be 
destructive and would result in the unraveling of the bill as it 
presently is before the Senate.
  At this point I am perfectly willing to yield the floor if other 
Senators wish to speak to the issue. I see the distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee and my distinguished chairman of the 
Environment Committee.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the author 
of this amendment. But as the distinguished Senator from Virginia has 
so ably stated, this amendment, if adopted, would be a killer 
amendment. So I rise in opposition to this amendment. Under current 
law, the 4.3-cent tax is transferred to the highway trust fund. And 
that tax is being proposed to be used to fund important highway 
programs.
  I point out, as the Senator from Virginia has already mentioned, 
months of hard work have gone into the development of this 
legislation. The bill has been considered for several days on the 
Senate floor. I think it is important that we move forward as 
expeditiously as possible.

  As I said, this amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of 
killing the ISTEA legislation. It would be most regrettable to have 
that happen. It is time, in my judgment, to pass the legislation and 
give States the necessary highway funding without further delay.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator may consume.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this sounds good, repeal the 4.3-cent 
gasoline tax. Nobody likes paying taxes. We all know that. We also know 
we want our highways.
  If this amendment were to pass, we would be going backwards. Why do I 
say that? I say that, first, because it would, as the Senator from 
Delaware said, kill this bill. This is a killer amendment. This 
amendment would take about $6 billion a year away from the highway 
bill, $6 billion that would not be spent on highway construction, 
maintenance, et cetera.
  In addition, it is inadvisable because we are now at this point, with 
the passage of this bill and the defeat of this amendment, spending the 
money that comes into the highway trust fund back out on to highways. 
That is, the revenue coming in as a consequence of this bill will be 
used to finance spending on our roads and our highways.
  I might say, Mr. President, that polls confirm that Americans support 
the gas tax so long as the funds are being used on our highways. That 
is what this bill does. This amendment says, sorry, folks, we are not 
going to repair the roads and highways, not to the degree we should, 
and we are going to be derelict and not live up to our 
responsibilities.
  Today, all levels of government spending on highways and roads and 
bridges is about $34 billion a year. The Department of Transportation 
says we need more than that. It says we need $54 billion just to 
maintain current conditions, just to maintain. We need about $74 
billion a year to improve. If this amendment passes, we are going to 
take $6 billion a year away from what we otherwise would be spending. 
That is, today I say we spend $34 billion, and it is true with the 
passage of this bill we spend more than $34 billion, but I might say I 
think it is obvious to Senators who are listening to this that it 
sounds good but it is a bad idea. I urge Members to yield back time and 
get on with the vote. We all know where the votes are in this, and we 
are just wasting our time by debating this further.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply say, philosophically I agree with my colleague, 
but I think it is an important amendment, one deserving such attention 
as the distinguished Senator from Florida desires. I will make a motion 
at an appropriate time here on the Budget Act, just to inform Senators, 
but I remind Senators we are ready to move on this amendment. If any 
Senator desires to speak, he or she should make that known to the 
managers of the bill.
  I agree with my colleague from Montana. I am prepared to yield back 
the time in opposition.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues, I have nothing 
but the greatest of respect for each of you as well. We all know that 
we come to the floor with different interests in this debate. I suspect 
if the addition of the 4.3 cents that I believe Senator Chafee added 
during this debate on the underlying bill, that probably, if that 4.3 
cents had gone back to each individual State as the money was 
contributed, it would be much harder for me to be here today offering 
an amendment to repeal it.
  But I think it is fair to say from the perspective of a donor State--
and I might add, a donor State for the past 41 years--that we are just 
kind of saying the time has arrived in which we think there ought to be 
greater equity in the allocation of funds and we believe that our 
States, and again the 29 donor States, would be better off with

[[Page S1746]]

the 4.3 cents coming back to their individual States for them to make a 
determination about how it should be spent.
  I just happen to believe, and many transportation economists support 
it, that the dollars spent in States themselves are more efficiently 
used, more effectively used, the purchasing power is much greater. 
Again, I respect the perspective that my colleagues on the other side 
of this issue raise, but I have a totally different viewpoint.
  The second point I raise is that the comment was made a few moments 
ago that somehow or another if I were to be successful in this 
amendment--and I think we all know before we have a vote what the 
outcome is going to be. I make a point that if we were to repeal this, 
to then assume that all of these funds would then not be spent for 
highway construction is fundamentally flawed.
  I indicated in my opening comments that State after State has raised 
their own gasoline taxes to be spent at home, and I say those States--
and I suspect mine would be one of them because we do have tremendous 
needs with respect to transportation, whether that be mass transit or 
whether that be highway construction--have tremendous needs and I am 
confident that the State legislatures would, in fact, address the issue 
of the 4.3-cent repeal.
  Again, the budget's bottom line is the 29 donor States would be much 
better off if, in fact, they were able to collect this money and set 
their own priorities. So that is, again, one of the reasons that I have 
offered this amendment.
  The last point I make before I yield to others is that the original 
bill had been crafted without this new funding. Any funding 
attributable to the 4.3 cents has been provided as a totally separate 
section of the committee's original bill.
  I don't think we are destroying the underlying work. I say to my 
colleagues, I look at this in a sense as two different packages. One, 
there is the underlying bill; and then the other has to do with how the 
4.3 cents is divided up.
  Again, my intention here is not to destroy the work that the 
committee has so diligently done, and in no way do I mean to imply by 
the offering of this amendment that I don't appreciate the work you 
have done to try to accommodate us. Each of us knows there is a point 
at which we have to stand up for our own beliefs, and the time has 
arrived with respect to this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I might say we have a basic disagreement on the 
likelihood that the States would all enact the tax promptly, but that 
certainly is an issue to be understood by all Senators.
  As to the funding, yes, the Senator is correct. The underlying bill 
which came out of the subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, of 
which the distinguished Senator from Montana is the ranking member, did 
not have these funds. I and, as a ranking member, Mr. Baucus, joined 
Senators Byrd and Gramm, and the rest is history. This amendment was 
adopted very strongly in the Senate.

  I have to say as to the bill as it has been amended under the 
leadership of the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Rhode 
Island, we have had to make some modifications to the allocation in the 
underlying bill as we placed on top the Chafee amendment which added 
the funds derived from the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus amendment.
  I assure the Senator that with the funding profile in this bill of 
equity among the States, where we had a 90 percent return in the 
original bill out of subcommittee and now we have achieved, I think, in 
many instances a 91 percent return in the combination of the underlying 
bill and the Chafee amendment, such amendments as we put on, some 
today, are--I use the word not ``killer'' but ``destructive,'' out of 
my respect for my good friend.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I could very briefly say to my good friend from 
Florida, I think it is important for us to look at our national motto: 
E pluribus unum. We are different States. Florida is a very densely 
populated State. Western States are very thinly populated. There are 
large expanses. Western States have high State gasoline taxes to match 
the Federal funds. I can't speak for all the western States, but I know 
my State of Montana has a 27-cents-a-gallon State gasoline tax. I don't 
know what it is in Florida.
  The assumption that, with the passage of the amendment, States 
themselves can spend their own money that they otherwise send to Uncle 
Sam, that money would be spent on highways may work in more densely 
populated States where the present gasoline tax is a little lower and 
where those States can finance the spending of the additional highway 
dollars, but I say to my good friend, in the West that is much more 
difficult. In fact, if Montana were to spend the same dollars that it 
sends to Uncle Sam and spend it at home, the State of Montana would 
have to raise the gasoline tax 12 to 15 cents. So we would be up to 
about 42 cents a gallon State tax on top of Federal. That is typical of 
a lot of western States. It just can't be done.
  So, it is the nature of the beast that the very densely populated 
States, the smaller, densely populated States similar to the State of 
Florida, are by definition going to have to probably pay a little more 
into the trust fund so that the very thinly populated States that 
already have very high State gasoline taxes trying to make their State 
match can have highways built in their States so we have a truly 
national system.
  If you follow the logic of the amendment of the Senator, and I 
understand it, it is essentially moving toward 50 nations, 50 States. 
We had that argument about 200 years ago when we scrapped the Articles 
of Confederation. We decided under the principles of federalism--it is 
complicated, I grant you--that we are a nation and we are 50 States--
not 50 then but today 50.
  It is not an easy matter. It is complex. We have to find some rough 
justice here. The effect of the amendment of the Senator, I submit with 
all graciousness, would have put an unfair burden on the thinly 
populated States because they couldn't raise the money, frankly, to 
have a truly national interstate highway or primary road system. It is 
for that reason, in addition, that I do not think the Senator's 
amendment is good for our country.
  Mr. MACK. If I may take a couple of minutes to respond, and then I 
think my colleague, Senator Graham, will seek recognition, I think it 
is fair to say that the so-called donor States, some of the more 
densely populated States, have recognized the needs of western States. 
I grant that there are unique situations that exist among the different 
States of our Nation.
  I might just say I don't think in my wildest imagination that if this 
amendment would pass, we would have created, then, 50 nations, but I 
understand the point that my colleague is trying to make.
  We understand and I think that, by our actions in the past, we 
recognize that. But the concept, when the Interstate Highway System was 
put into effect, in fact, was an interstate system. It was done for a 
national or Federal purpose. That is, in fact, why the formulas were 
initially created. But I again make the argument that--and I think most 
people would agree--for all intents and purposes, the Interstate System 
has been completed.
  While I probably would go much further than this amendment, all I am 
suggesting is that we take the 4.3-cent gasoline tax, which was 
originally passed for the purpose of deficit reduction, and eliminate 
that. I think it is fair to say that we do have an interstate system 
that is in place. States like mine recognize the needs of other States 
around the Nation. We helped build those, pay for those, and maintain 
those. But now it's time to recognize that there is a new era, that 
things have in fact changed. The Interstate System is built. There is 
no longer a deficit--at least, we are being told that--and it is safe 
to assume that, for as far as we can see, there will be surpluses. 
There ought to be a repeal of the tax.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my 
distinguished colleague from Florida, and I would like to point out 
several things,

[[Page S1747]]

if I might, in connection with the repeal of the 4.3-cent gasoline tax.
  It seems to me that this is an amendment that is about 2 weeks late. 
As we have had pointed out here, about 10 days ago, maybe a little bit 
more, we were in a jam on this floor in connection with this so-called 
ISTEA II legislation. State after State was asking for more, and so, 
thus, then came the freeing up, if you would, through negotiations with 
the majority leader, the leader of the Budget Committee and others from 
both sides of the aisle, of this money, which started out at $18 
billion and worked its way up to $25 billion. Because we had that extra 
money, we were able to achieve peace on the floor here, and we have 
adopted an amendment, which we just did a couple of hours ago, which we 
call the donor States amendment. As a result, the money has been spent. 
At least it has been allocated on the floor.
  If this amendment should pass, it then would unravel everything that 
we have accomplished in the last 2 weeks in this body. It would unravel 
the agreement we reached because there aren't additional funds to 
substitute for the 4.3 cents that we allocated. So I think it would be 
very unfortunate. Maybe if the amendment had been brought up, as I say, 
some 2 weeks ago and we then could say to everybody that there is no 
more, that is all there is, perhaps an agreement would have been 
reached. But I doubt it because sides were dug in pretty hard around 
here, and it was necessary for the majority leader to become involved 
and the Budget Committee chairman in order to extricate ourselves from 
that difficult situation.
  I want to raise one more point, Mr. President, and that is as 
follows. Every industrial nation in the world has far higher overall 
gasoline taxes than we have in this Nation. If you talk to any 
environmental group, they will say that gasoline taxes result in a 
reduction in miles traveled by automobiles. In other words, if somebody 
is encumbered by a gasoline tax, raising the cost of operating his or 
her vehicle, those people will be more cautious about using their 
vehicle, or else they will seek out vehicles that get far more miles 
per gallon than would otherwise be true. So a gasoline tax, no matter 
whether it's modest or very substantial, results in environmental 
improvements, lower emissions, obviously, and less global warming.
  So in a strange way that many of us haven't thought about, a vote to 
repeal the 4.3 cents would really be a vote against the environment and 
our efforts to reduce emissions in this country and our efforts to curb 
the global warming that is occurring.
  So, recognizing that both of my colleagues from Florida are very good 
environmentalists, I urge them to consider that measure when they rise 
to make their presentations.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to inform the Senate with regard to the 
status of the timing on this amendment, of course, under the time 
agreement--I first ask the Chair to state the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 43 minutes. The 
Senator from Florida has 48 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. It is the intention of the Senator 
from Virginia, in my capacity of managing time for the opponents, to 
yield back my time at such time as the distinguished Senators from 
Florida indicate they are prepared to do so.
  Just prior thereto, I shall make the following motion, which I do not 
make now but I state for the Record and for the information of all 
Senators:

  The amendment offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, repeals 
4.3 cents of the Federal gasoline tax. This amendment would result in a 
loss of Federal revenue of nearly $6 billion for the first year and $30 
billion over 5 years. The loss of revenue will cause a breach of the 
revenue floor established in the budget resolution. Therefore, I raise 
a point of order under section 311(a)(2)(b) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 against the pending amendment.
  I will ask the Chair at the appropriate time that that be stated.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia still has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to repeat the admonition the 
Senator from Virginia made for all those who wish to speak either for 
or against this amendment. Please come to the floor. I am not sure what 
the proponents of the amendment will do with their time. But as has 
been pointed out, we are anxious to move on with this legislation.
  Speaking just for our side, I hope that all those who wish to speak 
in opposition will come to the floor; here is your chance. The store is 
open for business. We are anxious to move on. If there are no speakers, 
the idea would be to close debate as soon as possible thereafter.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, controls 
the time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague such 
time as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague, Senator 
Mack, for having brought this fundamental issue to the Senate at the 
earliest opportunity that was available to have this matter debated. It 
had been our understanding and advice that it was on the amendment 
offered by the Finance Committee that the amendment that Senator Mack 
brings to us today to repeal the 4.3-cent deficit reduction tax, which 
was adopted in 1993, would be germane and appropriate. So we offer it 
to our colleagues at this earliest opportunity.
  Mr. President, I believe that there are a number of fundamental 
issues raised by this amendment. The first of those is the obvious, and 
that is that the United States is a federal system. We have the 
opportunities for the needs of our people to be met, as the Presiding 
Officer knows well as a former Governor of one of our States, by action 
at the State level, or by action at the national level where 
appropriate, and as illustrated by the transportation system, a merger 
of State and Federal initiatives. So the statement that is made that if 
we repeal these funds, it will have a serious adverse and continuous 
effect on our transportation system ignores the fact that (a) these 
funds were not levied for the purposes of transportation and, up until 
this proposal that is before us today, these funds have never been 
spent for transportation, and, third, that we are in essence returning 
to the States the fiscal capacity which they can decide to use for 
transportation.
  So we are not, in this amendment, hostile to the needs of 
transportation. We are particularly aware of those needs in a rapidly 
growing State. Our position is, however, that this degree of capacity 
to meet transportation needs should be at the States' discretion. The 
States should decide whether they wish to use this amount of resources 
to expand their transportation needs, and we should not arrogate that 
decision to us to make by shifting a tax initially levied for one 
purpose, deficit reduction, to a new purpose, transportation spending.
  Second is the enormity of the decision that we are about to make. The 
Interstate Highway System and the current Federal highway trust fund 
both came into being in the mid 1950s during the administration of 
President Dwight Eisenhower. President Eisenhower had a great vision 
for this Nation, which was that it would be linked by a system of the 
most modern highways. The Nation accepted that vision and, in 1957, we 
launched this goal.
  In that year, 1957, as we were starting the National Interstate 
Highway System, this Congress determined that the appropriate level of 
funding to commence the project was $2.1 billion. That is what was 
spent in the first year of the Interstate Highway System. Fifteen years 
later, in 1973, the system was well underway. Its tentacles were 
beginning to reach across America. Suburbs were being united by modern 
highway systems with major cities. Cities were being connected. Regions 
were being brought together in a national interstate highway system 
upon which we spent, in the 1973 Highway Act, $5.9 billion a year, for 
a total under that act of $17.8 billion for 3 years.
  In 1976, as the system continued to expand, in my State, as it was 
reaching down the east coast, what is now Interstate 95, we were 
spending $8.7 billion a

[[Page S1748]]

year on the Interstate Highway System. In 1978, as we were beginning to 
complete some of the major systems within our largest cities, we were 
spending $12.8 billion on the Interstate Highway System. Those numbers 
continued to grow until, by 1987, we were spending $14 billion a year 
on the Interstate Highway System, and I am pleased to announce that we 
brought it to completion.
  In fact, the last segment of the original Interstate Highway System 
that was completed was I-595 in Broward County, FL. A celebration 
should be held at that site where the last bit of asphalt and concrete 
were poured to complete a half century of America's effort to build the 
Interstate Highway System. When we passed ISTEA I in 1991, we declared 
this to be the first post-Interstate Highway System bill. Our actions 
were not quite consistent with the rhetoric because, in the first year 
after completion of the Interstate Highway System, we spent $20.4 
billion a year on highways--more than $6 billion more than we were 
spending in the last year when we were completing the Interstate 
Highway System.
  Now, today, we are proposing to pass a bill, which started at $145 
billion over a 6-year period, which has now reached $173 billion over a 
6-year period, for an average over that time of $28.8 billion. So we 
are going to be spending, in the period that is now almost 10 years 
after the completion of the system, approximately $14 billion, more 
than 100 percent more per year than we were spending in the last year 
of completing the Interstate Highway System.
  (Ms. COLLINS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I say enough is enough. We have finished 
our task. We have built the Interstate Highway System that was 
President Dwight Eisenhower's vision. This is the time to begin to ask 
the question: What is the Federal role in transportation? What is our 
next step in terms of meeting the transportation needs of the American 
citizen?
  I do not believe it is appropriate at this time to be doubling the 
amount of Federal expenditures over what we were spending as we were 
completing the very purpose for the Federal highway trust fund, which 
was the Interstate Highway System.
  Third, there is the issue of: Is this a fair tax? The Senate has 
considered that issue at great length. We considered it in 1993 when 
the tax was imposed as part of the deficit reduction program. This tax 
was not passed to add to the spending on the transportation system. 
Rather it was to reduce the Federal deficit.
  In 1996, recognizing that fact and recognizing that we were moving 
rapidly toward an elimination of the deficit, and at a time when there 
was a spike in gasoline taxes, our then colleague, Senator Bob Dole, 
offered an amendment to repeal the 4.3 cents. On the 14th of May of 
1996, we had a vote on a cloture motion to close down debate and to 
proceed to vote on Senator Dole's proposal to repeal the 4.3 cents.
  I might say that I opposed the repeal of the 4.3 cents because I felt 
we needed to retain those funds in the General Treasury until such time 
as we had in fact achieved the objective of eliminating the Federal 
deficit. But 54 of our 100 Members on the 14th of May of 1996 voted to 
invoke cloture and bring to a vote the proposal to repeal the 4.3 cents 
tax. There were many arguments made at that time in favor of that 
repeal.
  I will quote from one of those, which was given by the senior Senator 
from Texas which related to the issue of the fundamental unfairness of 
this 4.3 cents tax. The Senator stated on the 14th of May of 1996:

       We, therefore, created through this gasoline tax an 
     incredible redistribution of income and wealth. The Clinton 
     gasoline tax imposed a new burden on people who drive to work 
     for a living in order to subsidize people who, by and large, 
     do not go to work. We have an opportunity in this pending 
     amendment to solve this problem by repealing this gasoline 
     tax, thereby eliminating this burden on people who have to 
     drive their cars and trucks great distances to earn a living. 
     In my State it is not uncommon for someone to drive 40 miles 
     from where they work, and, as a result, a gasoline tax 
     imposes a very heavy burden on them. We have an opportunity 
     to eliminate this inequity by repealing the 4.3-cents-a-
     gallon tax on gasoline--a permanent gas tax that for the 
     first time ever went into the general revenue to fund social 
     programs instead of paying for highway construction.

  Madam President, we have that same opportunity again today to repeal 
this 4.3-cents tax, which is imposing this very heavy burden on many of 
our people.
  Finally, Madam President, on the issue of a national system or a 
parochial transportation system at the original recommended 
authorization level of $145 billion, which is the level recommended by 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we would have 
been spending approximately $23 billion more on the highway system 
under ISTEA II than we spent on the highway system under ISTEA I since 
1991. So there was a substantial increase in highway spending already 
recommended. On top of that, we have added an additional almost $29 
billion of highway spending.
  How have we chosen to distribute this money? I come from a State 
which, since the inception of the highway system, the Interstate 
Highway System in 1957, has been a donor State; that is, we have 
contributed more each year into the fund than we have received back 
from the fund. This was to be the year in which we would make a major 
breakthrough in terms of equity in the distribution of funds.
  I will say in commendation to the Senator from Virginia, the Senator 
from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Montana that we have made 
substantial progress in ISTEA II in terms of that goal of equity.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I wish to 
credit the Senator from Florida, and I will have further comments about 
his contribution all the way since 1991 on behalf of the donor States.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate that generous comment, 
which is typical of my friend from Virginia, with whom I was pleased to 
join as an original cosponsor of what we call step 21. Step 21 had as a 
central goal to provide that, of those funds which came into the 
Federal highway trust fund, 95 percent of those funds would be returned 
to the contributing States, thus leaving 5 percent of the total to be 
available to meet national needs as determined by this Congress. When 
we were debating step 21 and the various alternatives for the Federal 
highway program, it was determined that there was not an adequate 
amount of money left to meet national needs, if 95 percent was returned 
to the contributing State. So two changes were made.

  One change was to lower the percentage from 95 percent to 90 percent, 
and the second was to change the base upon which the percentage was 
applied from the amount that each State contributed to the fund to the 
amount which each State received from the fund for formula programs, 
which now is that approximately 91 to 92 percent of all of the funds 
which will be distributed will come through one of these formula 
programs.
  The rationale for stepping back from that original goal of equity of 
95 percent of contributions into the fund was that there were 
insufficient dollars in order to be able to achieve that level of 
equity. The concern of many today is that we have now added almost $29 
billion to the original $145 billion of highway funds, and, yet, we 
have made only marginal progress towards that original goal of equity. 
We still are going to utilize not a percentage of the money going into 
the fund but rather a percentage of money coming out of the fund under 
the formula programs. And we have increased the percentage from 90 to 
91 percent, albeit even that is going to be subject to a variety of 
factors that will occur over the next 6 years as to whether a true 91 
percent is established as the floor.
  Madam President, I believe we missed a major opportunity, if these 
new funds were going to be available, to use them, first, to achieve 
the goal of equity, which was established as a principal objective, and 
then to use the balance for those things that we considered to be of a 
national priority.
  So, with that history, I conclude that the best course of action for 
the additional funds which were adopted in 1993 as a deficit reduction 
measure, not a transportation measure, and which we have failed to use 
in the way to maximize the achievement of equity, is to say the 
appropriate thing to do is to follow the advice of our colleagues who 
spoke with such eloquence in 1993 and 1996 and terminate this tax at 
the Federal level.

[[Page S1749]]

  Let us give our citizens tax relief. It would represent tax relief of 
approximately $6 billion a year to the American motorist by repealing 
this tax at the Federal level. I would not suggest that the American 
motorist should immediately begin putting those dollars in their 
wallets, because we are essentially releasing that capacity to the 
States so the States can decide whether they wish to utilize these 
funds by levying part or all of this as a State gasoline tax, therefore 
using those funds to meet needs which people in the States and 
communities of America identify to be of the greatest priority.
  I believe that is in the spirit of this new Congress and its emphasis 
on placing authority and responsibility as close to the people as 
possible. I believe we can say that we are able to meet our national 
transportation responsibilities with approximately an additional $23 
billion above what we are spending in the current transportation bill 
without having to utilize this 4.3 cents.
  I believe that we would come closer to our goal of equity by allowing 
the States, unencumbered by all of the Federal constraints and 
regulatory requirements and the sheer expense of shipping people's 
money from Maine to Washington and then back to Maine--let it stay in 
Maine and not be subjected to any of the transactional costs of coming 
through Washington. Let the people of Florida, let the people of North 
Dakota, California, West Virginia, Virginia, Montana, and every other 
State decide what they want to do with the 4.3 cents if they choose to 
levy it for their transportation needs.
  So I commend my colleague for his tenacity in raising this 
opportunity to provide tax relief, enhance federalism, and to truly 
recognize that we have celebrated the victory of completion of the 
Interstate System, that we are in a new era, and that we should 
recognize and act as if we are in that new era.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I will take about 2 minutes, and then I 
will yield the floor.
  First, I say to our distinguished colleague from Florida that, while 
we, first, disagree on this issue, he, indeed, has been a partner. He 
is a very valued member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
He has been in the forefront of this legislation beginning back in 1991 
when there was a recognition that the donor States were simply not 
getting an equitable allocation. Under his leadership, we put together 
step 21, which was the coalition of the various highway officials in 
the several States that were donor States who worked for years on 
procedures by which to correct the inequities that were placed on the 
donor States in 1991. We should always remember, it was that group that 
was the foundation group of the legislation that we now are considering 
here in the Senate. Eventually that was joined with a group under the 
leadership of the distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, Stars 
2000, and it was that coalition that began to move this legislation. I 
shall always be grateful. Also, the Senator from Florida was very 
helpful, drawing on his experience as Governor, in streamlining this 
procedure so the various highway projects, once authorized, funds 
appropriated through the States, were started, and you could expedite 
the Federal Highway Administration and the like to get them done on 
time.
  We shall always remember with great respect the contributions of the 
distinguished Senator from Florida. I point out both Senators from 
Florida. I notice that under ISTEA I, since 1991, you received 81 cents 
on the dollar. Under this bill before the Senate, Florida will receive 
a 52 percent increase, approximately. That is quite an achievement 
which the two Senators from Florida have made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for 
yielding to me and for sponsoring this amendment, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, and heartily urge my colleagues to support, and I also thank 
the other Senator from Florida, who has just made an eloquent argument 
in favor of this amendment as well.
  Madam President, there are three primary points I would like to make 
in support of the Mack amendment. First of all, this represents the 
first opportunity that we have had to repeal a portion of the 1993 tax 
increase that virtually every Republican--maybe every Republican; I 
will have to go back and look to be sure--voted against. I was a Member 
of the House at the time and I recall that after the so-called Clinton 
tax increase of 1993 there was a great uprising in the State of 
Arizona, especially over the 4.3-cent gas tax increase that was a part 
of that. I introduced a bill immediately to repeal that 4.3-cent gas 
tax increase.
  I remember a radio station asked me to go to a service station and 
talk to people who came by to gas up their cars and trucks. I was 
amazed at the reaction of the people as they drove up and heard about 
this increase in the gas tax. They were irate. They were very 
supportive of my effort to get it repealed which has, up to now, been 
unsuccessful. Perhaps with the sponsorship of the Senator from Florida, 
now it will be successful.
  But I must say that Republicans who voted against that tax increase 
in 1993 but who vote against its repeal today have some answering to do 
to their constituents. I think this is a symptom of Potomac fever. We 
oppose a tax increase, especially when it is the agenda of the opposing 
party, and we go back home and we rail against it. But then too many of 
our colleagues fail to follow up their rhetoric with action to repeal 
the tax.
  Now is our opportunity. Where will Republicans stand? I know a lot of 
my Democratic colleagues will continue to support the tax. They are not 
about to vote for this repeal, except for certain enlightened Democrats 
such as the Senator who has just spoken. But where will my Republican 
colleagues stand, those who opposed the gas tax when it was put into 
effect, who argued against it, who voted against it, and now have an 
opportunity to repeal it? Ah, but now they have an opportunity to 
divide up the money. The longer you are here, the more accustomed you 
get to spending American taxpayer dollars. After all, you get to go 
home and show the folks what a wonderful, magnanimous, generous person 
you are by giving them back some of their money.
  As the good Senator from Virginia just said, States like Arizona and 
Florida got increases in their percentage in this bill. Yes, that is 
true. When you start from a very low percentage and you get a good 
increase in the total dollars, it represents a big increase percentage-
wise. But, like my colleagues from Florida, I represent a State, 
Arizona, which is still a donor State. Something mysterious happens. 
Arizonans send a dollar to Washington in gas taxes and Federal highway 
taxes and we get 89 cents back. Something happens to the other 11 
cents.
  Here in Washington, DC, it's not so bad. The round trip actually 
earns them $2 on the $1 they send. Maybe that is because they do not 
send it so far. We have colleagues from other States, I will not 
mention them, but some colleagues are here representing constituents 
who send $1 and they get $2 back, or more than $2 back, and they ask us 
to be grateful for the fact that we get 90 cents instead of 89 cents, 
``We gave you an increase.'' Madam President, it is not fair. That is 
the second reason I suggest we repeal this 4.3-cent gas tax.
  We have a policy now in the Congress called devolution. It's a fancy 
word for ``let's give the power back to the States and the local 
government and to the people.'' The Federal Government has gotten too 
big and too powerful. One way we could do that is by repealing this 
4.3-cent gas tax. My colleagues who want to spend the money on 
highways, all they have to do is go back to their State legislatures 
and say, Folks, we just repealed the 4.3-cent Federal tax. If you want 
to tax the people of Montana, Virginia, New York, whatever, 4.3 cents, 
they will never notice the difference at the gas pump. They will be 
paying exactly the same for a gallon of gas today as yesterday and 
tomorrow. Then we can spend the 4.3 cents in Montana or New York or 
Virginia or whatever the State is.

[[Page S1750]]

  Actually, a lot of us would be better off because we do not lose any 
of that money as it makes the trip to Washington and then comes back. 
If my State of Arizona wanted to immediately put on a 4.3-cent State 
gas tax, the State of Arizona would come out very well. We would get to 
spend that money on our Arizona roads, and maybe the State legislature 
would do that, but I would rather have them decide that rather than 
have people here in Washington decide that we are going to retain this 
tax with the result that my State gets back about 89 cents or 90 cents. 
So that is the second reason. It is the right thing to do in terms of 
returning the power back to the people at the lower levels of 
government so they can decide for themselves how much tax they want to 
impose upon themselves.
  The third reason is that America is already an overtaxed nation. This 
last year the taxes, the total tax burden has now gone up well over 38 
percent. It is the highest level since 1945: $6,047 for every man, 
woman, and child in the country. That is over $27,000 for a family of 
four. We are an overtaxed nation. We do not need this money. We are now 
in a budget surplus situation. This tax increase was designed to reduce 
the deficit. The deficit has been reduced and our surplus is going to 
be, I suggest, at least as much as the money that would be lost as a 
result of the imposition of this tax. In any event, it has been paid 
for in the sense that obligations of Government have been reduced 
correspondingly so it has a neutral budget effect.
  Madam President, I think, since this is a tax that affects every 
American equally, its repeal would not be for the wealthy. It would 
have just as much of an effect on the wealthy or the poor or the 
modest-income or whatever. It would be a very fair way to return some 
of the hard-working American families' money to them so they could 
decide themselves how to spend it. I urge support for the Mack 
amendment to repeal the 4.3-cent Federal gas tax, because, first of 
all, it is unnecessary, second, because it is unfair; third, because it 
is contradictory to our policy to return power to the States and the 
people, and fourth, because it adds an unnecessary tax burden to the 
already overtaxed families of America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mack amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I would like to inquire as to the amount 
of time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 20 minutes 42 
seconds.
  Mr. MACK. And those opposed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 38 minutes 38 seconds.
  Mr. MACK. I would inform the Senate, to my knowledge, we have only 
one more speaker. Should there be no speakers on the other side, I will 
be prepared to yield back the remainder of time at the conclusion of 
the comments of Senator Nickles.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator--at 
which time, speaking on behalf of the opposition, I shall yield back 
the time, make the appropriate budget statement, and then the Senator 
will be recognized for the procedure he will follow thereafter.
  Mr. MACK. I am of the opinion we will not have any more speakers, but 
I will reserve that judgment until that time arrives.
  I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I compliment my colleagues from Florida 
for this amendment. I wish to be made a cosponsor of this amendment and 
ask unanimous consent to be made a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I also compliment my colleague, Senator 
Warner from Virginia, for his leadership on this. Senator Baucus, 
Senator Graham, Senator Byrd, Senator Chafee--a lot of people--worked a 
long time on this bill. I hope we can finish this bill today. If not 
today, certainly this week. This is an important piece of legislation.
  The reason why I cosponsored the amendment of my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Mack, is because I happen to think he is right. I know 
a lot of work has been going into allocations. The Senators managing 
this bill have been bending over backwards to be fair to every Senator. 
I think they have been doing the best job they can and I compliment 
them on their work. But I happen to think Senator Mack is right. Should 
the gasoline tax be a prerogative of the State or the Federal 
Government? Should we all as colleagues have to bend and beg and plead? 
I do not really like doing that. I don't like asking for money in 
appropriations. I have done it on occasion. Senator Byrd has 
accommodated me on occasion when he was chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. Sometimes Senator Stevens has. I appreciate that. But I 
really do not enjoy that nor do I enjoy, when we have a highway bill, 
saying, ``Oh, please, we need more money. We are not doing very well in 
this bill. We are not doing as well as I hoped.''
  We happen to be a donor State. I know Virginia has been. I know 
Florida has. I know a lot of States have. We don't like it. We don't 
like sending a dollar to Washington, DC, and getting 80 cents back in 
return. Unfortunately, that has happened year after year after year. We 
are talking about a lot more money.
  I heard on the floor discussions: Senator Warner is going to get 50 
percent more, 52 percent. So is Oklahoma. It's a lot more money 
compared to the last 6 years, a lot more money to our States.
  Every one of our contractors is going to be delighted with this bill. 
They have been knocking on my door: Please pass this bill. They maybe 
don't get involved in should we be donors or should we not. My thought, 
though, is this tax really should belong to the States. I do read the 
Constitution. The Constitution and the 10 amendments say all the rights 
and powers are reserved to the States and to the people. Shouldn't we 
allow the States to have the prerogative to have a gasoline tax and 
spend it the way they want? Then we don't have to fight and beg and 
plead and say, ``Hey, wait, I want 90 cents of my dollar back.'' If I 
do really good, I will get 90 cents on the dollar back. You lose 10 
percent off the top. Not all States lose 10 percent; some States do 
better than other States. I guess that is the way it is always going to 
be when you have a national program.
  Our State does not qualify as a dense State. That applies to some big 
States. There is a dense State formula in here that helps some States. 
Our State doesn't qualify for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I 
know some States do. There is a bonus provision. Maybe we do--no, we 
didn't qualify for that. We get a little something.
  My point being you have to beg, cajole, and plead. Maybe you come up 
with 90 cents, but that is 90 cents on 90 cents. My math is not always 
accurate, but sometimes it's fast, and 90 percent of 90 percent is 
about 81 cents. I have seen one chart that says we will come out with 
about 82 cents, maybe 83 cents. The point being, you send $1 to 
Washington, DC, and in return you lose maybe 17, 18 percent before it 
gets back to the State.
  Then, as Senator Mack mentioned, when it comes back, there are a lot 
of strings. It's not quite as simple as, ``Here, States, you get your 
money back. You can have the 82 cents or 90 cents or whatever and you 
can spend it as you wish.'' That is not the case. There are lots of 
strings. You have little requirements like you have to meet Davis-
Bacon. You have to meet a lot of other requirements, Federal highway 
standards and so on. Guess what. A lot of these roads are not Federal 
highway roads or they are not part of the interstate system. The 
interstate system is, by and large, complete. It needs a lot of 
maintenance, I guess, but certainly that could be maintained without 
this 4.3 cents per gallon.
  In my State of Oklahoma, the legislature has already passed 
legislation, already the law of the land. If the Federal Government 
does not extend the 4.3 cents, or if we repeal it, that tax increase 
goes on automatically for our State. So there will not be any loss of 
income. The State is going to pick it up. Our State is going to be a 
lot better off.
  Every once in a while you do vote your State interest around here, 
and my State interest is, let's repeal that 4.3 cents and we are going 
to get 100 percent of the money, not 90 cents, not

[[Page S1751]]

82 cents, we are going to get 100 percent of the money. And we don't 
get the Federal strings, and the Governor and the legislature can 
decide how they want to spend it. They don't have to spend it on this 
type of road--primary road, secondary road. They have all the 
flexibility they want because it's theirs. They have all the authority. 
They don't have to worry about the differences. Hey, wait a minute, 
budget authority/budget outlays, this is not easy. And we are going to 
allocate 100 percent of this money for contract authority, but the 
outlays won't hit for a number of years. We don't have to worry about 
that. If we repeal this, the States are going to have 100 percent of 
the money and they can let the contracts and they can make the 
decisions and, frankly, I think some of us should have some more 
confidence in our States. So I rise in support of this amendment.
  I opposed the 1993 tax increase that was passed by President Clinton 
at that time. It didn't have a Republican vote, as I recall. I thought 
that was a mistake. That was a 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax 
increase that went into the general revenue. It did not go to highways. 
A lot of us said we thought that was a mistake. At least in this bill, 
and I compliment the sponsors, at least we are going to rectify that. 
Under this bill, assuming the amendment of Senator Mack and myself does 
not pass, this money at least will be spent for highways. I think that 
is a giant step in the right direction. I compliment the sponsors, and 
particularly Senator Graham and Senator Byrd, who were very 
persistent--I started to say stubborn in their efforts. Because that 
helped make that happen. That doesn't mean our budget problems are 
over. We are going to have some challenging times to stay within the 
caps on the budget, but we will wrestle with that. Hopefully, we will 
stay on the caps in the budget and will still be able to put 100 
percent of the moneys coming in into the highway program and the 
gasoline tax will stay in the highway program.
  I think the better fix would be the fix that Senator Mack is 
proposing, and that is, let's allow the States to have this tax and 
let's give the States the option.
  My guess is a strong majority of the States would continue the tax, 
because all States have very significant needs and demands on their 
highways for safety, for maintenance, for upgrades. Certainly my State 
does, and I know that is the action our State would take.
  So I believe the best solution would be the solution proposed by my 
colleagues from Florida, and that would be to give the States the 
option. Let's repeal the 4.3-cent tax. I think it was a mistake in 
1993; I still think it is a mistake in 1998. Let's allow that money to 
go back to the States, and if the States want to enact it, they can, or 
if they want to return it to the taxpayers, they will have that option 
to do so as well.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Mack 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I know how my distinguished leader wants 
to be accurate. In the course of his remarks, there might have been the 
inference, in support of the Mack amendment, that all the money would 
go back to the States, but, in fact, as you well understand, 14 and a 
fraction cents still go to the highway fund.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is true.
  Mr. WARNER. We are really talking about 4.3.
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, 4.3.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am prepared to make the following 
statement to the Senate:
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, repeals 
4.3 cents of the Federal gasoline tax. This amendment will result in a 
loss of Federal revenues of nearly $6 billion for the first year and 
$30 billion over 5 years. The loss of revenue will cause a breach of 
the revenue floor established in the budget resolution. Therefore, I 
raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 against the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has to be yielded back on the 
amendment before the point of order may be made.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand. I am prepared to do that at such time as we 
yield back the time. I thought I stated that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so acknowledge.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank you.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Who controls the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I control the time in opposition. We will accommodate the 
Senator. Are his remarks generic to the bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. They are on this amendment. I am in opposition to it.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am constrained to come here in two 
roles. One is as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I am 
certain everyone will understand that problem. This is, obviously, a 
situation in which we negotiated a very tightly wrapped package, and it 
will eventually come to our committee. The distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia and I will allocate money under it.
  The real difficulty I see with the amendment of the Senator from 
Florida is, having reached an agreement of what to do with the 4.3 
cents of the tax revenue, now that we have transferred it to the 
highway trust fund, it would be repealed. I just cannot understand an 
attempt to do that at this time, I say respectfully to my friend.
  I do understand people who are insisting that the donor States ought 
to be totally recognized to get 100 percent of their money back, and 
this obviously would be one way to do that.
  I am here in the second role as a Senator from the largest State in 
the Union, 20 percent of the landmass in the United States. I repeat 
for the Senate, we have a thousand miles more of roads now than when we 
became a State almost 40 years ago. We are completely locked out of 
this highway program.
  I wonder what Dwight D. Eisenhower, the person I consider to be one 
of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, would feel about the 
concept that roads would only be built by those people who lived within 
the State. The national concept of highways was, in fact, the 
Eisenhower dream, and it has been fulfilled in the Interstate Highway 
System, but the difficulty is it does not reach our State.
  Furthermore, this concept that people who drove from Florida to 
Alaska would suddenly stop at the border and be told, ``Sorry, we don't 
have tax revenues, so we can't build you any roads,'' or you drove to 
Seattle and went to the dock where we currently maintain the ferries 
for citizens of the United States and others to come to Alaska by 
Alaskan-owned and operated ferries--you would find out they wouldn't be 
there any longer.
  The concept of highways in this country has always been a national 
concept, and I have always thought, as I paid my gasoline taxes as I 
drove across the country--and I have driven across the country and up 
to my State many times--as we drive even into our neighboring country 
of Canada, we pay a Canadian gasoline tax. It never entered my mind 
that the Canadians somehow would think I was a Canadian citizen paying 
taxes in Canada.
  Nor do I think that all the people who travel on the roads in Florida 
or any of the rest of these roads around the country are necessarily 
residents of that State. The States collect the taxes, but they 
certainly have no right to collect the taxes from people from outside 
their State who are traveling through that State to come to mine.

[[Page S1752]]

  The idea of repealing this gas tax at this time is just completely 
abhorrent to this Senator's way of thinking. But beyond that, I am 
here, once again, to say to the sponsor of this amendment, the 
amendment is unfair, basically, to the States that do not have the 
highways totally constructed yet.
  This is a bill to improve existing highways, not to continue the idea 
of making sure that there are highways in this country to reach every 
portion of this great continent that Americans who travel with their 
families, travel in RVs, travel in their personal automobiles want to 
go. I just can't believe we are going to abandon the concept that there 
is one national system of highways. And if there is a national system 
of highways, some of this highway money has to trickle into Alaska.

  Somehow or another, we have to find some way--I see the Senator from 
Oklahoma smiling. I wonder what would have happened if I just returned 
from Philadelphia, and suppose we put in the Constitution that there 
would be no money spent coming from the original 13 States beyond the 
confines of the 13 States. That is what you are saying--you cannot 
spend money beyond our State if it was taken into the Treasury through 
our State.
  Again, I say to the Senate advisably, we send 25 percent of the oil 
of the United States to the United States, to what we call the ``south 
48,'' every day--every day. It is the oil that is used to produce the 
gasoline that your States tax. The taxes are derived from that oil. 
They do not come back to our State.
  How about we put in a provision that says 100 percent of the revenue 
of the United States from the development of any resource in any State 
comes back to that State? Would that be agreeable? Would the Senator 
from Florida like to see that? We have the store house of the United 
States as far as resources are concerned. We would be able to build 
roads then, Madam President.
  As long as we base this concept that the money has to go back to the 
very State in which it was collected from any citizen of the United 
States traveling through the United States, no matter where they are 
from, it goes back to the State that collected the money, then we won't 
have a National Highway System.
  I am against this concept of repealing this tax. I hope that the 
Senate will find that the point of order is well taken. I congratulate 
the Senator from Virginia for making it.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, before I yield back the remainder of my 
time and ask for a waiver of the Budget Act, I cannot help but respond 
to my delightful colleague from Alaska.
  First of all, with respect to Eisenhower, if you go back and read the 
record, Eisenhower indicated that he was in favor of repealing the gas 
tax when the interstate system was completed. So I think if he had the 
opportunity, we would know where he stood on this issue.
  In respect to the comments made about Florida and Alaska and oil and 
so forth, I remind my colleagues, I am talking about 4.3 cents of the 
gasoline tax. That is point 1.
  Point 2, we have supported the interstate system for 41 years, and 
there will be sufficient funds to, in fact, maintain the interstate 
system after the repeal of the 4.3 cents.
  I just could not let those comments go without responding.
  At this point, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, at this time I yield back the time in 
opposition and restate, which has been put in the Record twice, the 
budget point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator from Virginia when he expects this vote 
to occur.
  Mr. WARNER. Now.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to the Senator, that's fine.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                     Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act for 
consideration of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to the Mack amendment No. 1906. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 18, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--80

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Sessions
     Shelby
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 18, the nays are 80. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment fails.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have a couple of quick colloquies and 
then it is my understanding that the Senator from Arizona has an 
amendment which he wishes to present. So let's proceed with these 
colloquies. Then when the Senator from Arizona completes his amendment, 
which I understood was going to be something like 10 minutes equally 
divided, I understand he was going to ask for a rollcall vote, but I 
don't see the Senator here.
  Meanwhile, the Senator from Colorado has a colloquy.


                           Amendment No. 1328

  Mr. ALLARD. I want to thank the chairman for yielding, and I will 
engage the chairman and the ranking member in a brief colloquy, if I 
may.
  I had an amendment, 1328, filed and was prepared to offer it for a 
vote. The amendment would have added particulate matter and ozone as an 
equally weighted factor for funding from the Congestion Mitigation Air 
Quality Program (CMAQ).
  My concern is that Colorado has problems from PM-10 in the Denver 
Metro Area that are transportation related that could be lessened from 
inclusion in the CMAQ program. My understanding is that high altitude 
states may have a problem with respect to this pollutant that low 
altitude states may not have. As the chairman and the ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee both know, my amendment 
would have an impact not only on the CMAQ program, but on the formula 
as a whole.
  Out of respect to the hours of work put in by the Senator Chafee, 
Warner, and Baucus, I'm not going to offer the amendment. However, H.R. 
2400 which was reported out of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee in the House of Representatives does make allowances for 
funding PM-10 in CMAQ.
  It's my hope that the leadership of the EPW Committee would find a 
way to help areas like Colorado deal with their unique problems with 
respect to PM and carbon monoxide in conference and I will provide any 
assistance necessary in working toward that end. I will not be offering 
that amendment

[[Page S1753]]

with the assurances that you will continue to work with me.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I say to the Senator from Colorado that we are happy to 
pledge to him that we will strive in our work during the conference 
with the House to address the issue the Senator has raised. The House 
bill includes the provision he would have offered, so the issue will be 
in conference. The PM factor will be considered.
  The Senator from Colorado has raised a very good point. In some 
western cities transportation emissions are a principal source of fine 
particulates in the air. EPA has recently issued new standards for 
particulate matter that may require these cities to adopt 
transportation strategies to reach attainment. The CMAQ program in this 
highway bill is intended to help cities solve their transportation-
related air quality problems. So I am happy to pledge to the Senator 
from Colorado that we will strive in our work during the conference 
with the House to address the issue he has raised. The House bill 
includes the provision he would have offered, so the issue will be in 
the conference and the PM factor could be included in the final formula 
for CMAQ funding. I want to stress though that we should only move in 
that direction where the particulate pollution problem is caused by 
transportation as opposed to stationary sources such as power plants.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I supplement what the chairman of the 
committee said. This has been a matter with the Senator from Colorado 
and is a matter that relates to CMAQ funding. I can assure the Senator 
from Colorado that, as I think the Senator from Rhode Island said, we 
will work with the Senator, work it out in conference, and try to come 
up with a solution that is workable and agreeable with the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank both the chairman and ranking member for their 
willingness to work with me on this very important issue.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Colorado for being able to work 
this out. He has been very patient and very helpful as we have tried to 
reach conclusion on this matter, something he cares deeply about. We 
will do in the conference exactly as I said and make an honest effort.
  Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has an amendment, but 
that amendment, it is my understanding, was going to be opposed by the 
Senator from Iowa. I don't see him here. In fairness to him----
  Mr. McCAIN. Perhaps I could take a few minutes in describing it and 
by that time the Senator from Iowa would be here.
  He is rather familiar with the issue, as the Senator knows.
  Mr. CHAFEE. He certainly is. Why don't you go ahead, and we will try 
to round up the Senator from Iowa.


                Amendment No. 1968 to Amendment No. 1963

   (Purpose: To prohibit extension of inequitable ethanol subsidies)

  Mr. McCAIN. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1968.

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

       At the end of the amendment, add the following new section:
       ``Sec. X008. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     existing provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     relating to ethanol fuels may not be extended beyond the 
     periods specified in the Code, as in effect prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island, 
the distinguished managers, I will take about 5 minutes and then I will 
have no more debate. This issue is very well known. I do not like to 
impede the progress of the Senate. While I am speaking, perhaps the 
Senator from Iowa will agree to that time agreement. I want to let him 
know I am agreeable to any time agreement.
  Mr. President, the amendment prevents an extension of inequitable 
Government subsidies for the ethanol industry that would cost the 
American taxpayers $3.8 billion.
  The amendment is simple. It negates the effect of the Finance 
Committee amendment, which is No. 1759, to the ISTEA legislation, which 
would extend for an additional 7 years the tax credits for ethanol and 
methanol producers. The value of these ethanol subsidies is estimated 
by the Congressional Budget Office at $3.8 billion in lost revenue.
  Enough is enough. The American taxpayers have subsidized the ethanol 
industry, with guaranteed loans and tax credits for more than 20 
years. Since 1980, government subsidies for ethanol have totaled more 
than $10 billion. The Finance Committee amendment to ISTEA, if not 
stricken, would give another $3.8 billion in tax breaks to ethanol 
producers.

  Current law provides tax credits for ethanol producers which are 
estimated to cost the Treasury $770 million a year in lost revenue, and 
the Congressional Research Service estimates that loss may increase to 
$1 billion by the year 2000. These huge tax credits effectively 
increase the tax burden on other businesses and individual taxpayers.
  The current tax subsidies for ethanol are scheduled to expire at the 
end of 2000. This amendment does not change current law; it allows the 
existing generous subsidies do continue until the turn of the century. 
The amendment merely ensures that the subsidies do expire and are not 
extended for another 7 years.
  Mr. President, let me just take a moment and try to explain why we 
have such generous ethanol subsidies in law today. The rationale for 
ethanol subsidies has changed over the years, but unfortunately, 
ethanol has never lived up to the claims of any of its diverse 
proponents.
  In the late 1970s, during the energy crisis, ethanol was supposed to 
help the U.S. lessen its reliance on oil. But ethanol use never took 
off, even when gasoline prices were highest and lines were longest.
  Then, in the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up 
America's struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the usual ``trickle 
down'' effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. Beef and 
dairy farmers, for example, have to pay a higher price for feed corn, 
which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. 
The average consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in 
the grocery store.

  By the late 1980s, ethanol became the environmentally correct 
alternative fuel. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has provided 
statistics showing that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of 
ethanol than the amount of energy that gallon of ethanol contains. In 
addition, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the Department of Energy all acknowledge that the 
environmental benefits of ethanol use, at least in terms of smog 
reduction, are yet unproven.
  In addition, ethanol is an inefficient, expensive fuel. Just look at 
the 3- to 5-cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline prices during the 
winter months in the Washington, D.C. area when ethanol is required to 
be added to the fuel.
  Finally, let me quote Stephen Moore, of the CATO Institute, who puts 
it very succinctly in a recent paper:

       . . . [V]irtually every independent assessment--by the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture, the General Accounting Office, the 
     Congressional Budget Office, NBC News and several academic 
     journals--has concluded that ethanol subsidies have been a 
     costly boondoggle with almost no public benefit.

  So why do we continue to subsidize the ethanol industry? I think 
James Bovard of the CATO Institute put it best in a 1995 policy paper:

       . . . [O]ne would be hard-pressed to find another industry 
     as artificially sustained as the ethanol industry. The 
     economics of ethanol are such that, for the industry to 
     survive at all, massive trade protection, tax loopholes, 
     contrived mandates for use, and production subsidies are 
     vitally necessary. Only by spooking the public with bogeymen 
     such as foreign oil sheiks, toxic air pollution, and the 
     threatened disappearance of the American farmer can attention 
     be deflected from the real costs of the ethanol house of 
     cards that consumes over a billion dollars annually.

  Mr. President, last year, when the Congress was considering the 
Taxpayer Relief Act, the House Ways and Means Committee took a bold 
step and included in its version of the bill a phase-

[[Page S1754]]

out of ethanol subsidies. In the report accompanying the bill, the 
House Committee stated:

       [Ethanol tax subsidies] were assumed to be temporary 
     measures that would allow these fuels to become economical 
     without permanent Federal subsidies. Nearly 20 years have 
     passed since that enactment, and neither the projected prices 
     of oil nor the ability of ethanol to be a viable fuel without 
     Federal subsidies has been realized. The 
     Committee determined, therefore, that enactment of an 
     orderly termination of this Federal subsidy program is 
     appropriate at this time.

  The Senate Finance Committee took the opposite view, but fortunately, 
reason prevailed and the conference agreement on the Taxpayer Relief 
Bill made no change to current law, allowing this needless subsidy 
program to expire at the turn of the century.
  Mr. President, we should end these subsidies. If ever there was a 
prime example of corporate pork, the unnecessary, inequitable ethanol 
subsidy program is it.
  Mr. President, with today's booming economy, it is hard to justify 
continued government subsidies for programs that have not lived up to 
expectations after more than two decades of government assistance. It 
is even harder when those subsidies are given to an industry that makes 
over $30 million a year producing ethanol.
  Current law terminates ethanol subsidies after the year 2000. This 
amendment would avoid the $3.8 billion cost of extending the ethanol 
subsidies through 2006. I urge my colleagues to oppose changing current 
law and adopt my amendment to prohibit extension of the ethanol 
subsidies.
  Again, Mr. President, I am not without sympathy for the corn 
producers. I have less sympathy for the large corporations that produce 
it. But the fact is that I would be willing to agree to an orderly 
phaseout of this program. But for us to just permanently extend a 
program that has no viable benefit to consumer or environment doesn't 
make any sense.
  Mr. President, how do we go to the American taxpayer and say, gee, we 
are cutting your taxes, trying to save you money, we are trying to have 
good Government here, when we have already spent some $10 billion in 
subsidies over the last 20 years? And now we are going to go through a 
$3.8 billion cost to the taxpayer as a result of the ISTEA bill.
  Mr. President, we should not do that. We really should not do it. 
Again, I urge my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who I respect 
enormously--I would be glad to talk about a phaseout. But a phaseout 
must take place.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, several months ago, during the 
debate on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, some of my colleagues called 
upon Congress to end its commitment to ethanol.
  These lawmakers drew their daggers in professed horror, charging that 
federal support for ethanol was some sort of ``deficit buster,'' or a 
conspiracy of ``corporate welfare.''
  While I know that in recent years, this mantra has become popular and 
convenient for some, it falls far short of the facts in this instance.
  Ethanol, as my colleagues are aware, is an alcohol-based motor fuel 
manufactured from corn. Over fifty facilities produce ethanol in more 
than twenty different states. By the year 2005, 640 million bushels of 
corn will be used to produce 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol.
  Ethanol is good for the environment. Ethanol burns more cleanly than 
gasoline, and, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
diminishes dangerous fossil-based fumes, like carbon monoxide and 
sulfur, that choke the air of our congested urban areas.
  Tankers will not spill ethanol into our oceans, killing wildlife. 
National parks and refuges will not be target for exploratory drilling. 
When ethanol supplies run low, you simply grow more corn.
  Ethanol strengthens our national security. Ethanol flows not from oil 
wells in the Middle East, but from grain elevators in the Middle West, 
using American farmers, and creating American jobs. With each acre of 
corn, ten barrels of foreign oil are displaced--up to 70,000 barrels 
each day.
  And for farmers, ethanol creates value-added markets, creating new 
jobs and boosting rural economic development. According to a recent 
study conducted by Northwestern University, the 1997 demand for ethanol 
is expected to create 195,000 new jobs nationwide.
  Ethanol is the fuel of the future--and the future is here. Illinois 
drivers consumer almost five billion gallons of gasoline, one-third of 
which is blended with ethanol. Chicago automotive plants are assembling 
a new Ford Taurus that runs on 85 percent ethanol. More and more gas 
stations are offering ethanol as a choice at the pump.
  Isn't it worth cultivating an industry that improves the environment 
and promotes energy independence? Isn't it the responsibility of 
Congress to foster an economic climate that creates jobs and 
strengthens domestic industry? Don't we have a commitment to rural 
America, and a responsibility for its economic future?
  Mr. President, I think the answer to these questions is a resounding 
yes, and that's why I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to vote 
against the anti-ethanol tax hike amendment offered by Senator McCain.
  The good Senator from Arizona took us down this road last year, only 
to be turned back by a vote of 69-30.
  I want to thank the 35 Republicans and 34 Democrats who joined in 
defending the Grassley/Moseley-Braun ethanol program extension, and 
urge that you join us again in defending one of our Nations's bright 
spots in our long battle to reduce our dependence upon foreign energy.
  I want to thank Chairman Roth for honoring the request from Senator 
Lott, Senator Moseley-Braun, and me to include in the highway bill the 
same ethanol language that we defended in that 69-30 vote last year.
  Mr. President, with increased frequency, we hear loosely tossed 
around the phrase ``corporate welfare.''
  Unfortunately, by failing to establish and apply a consistent, 
workable definition, ``corporate welfare'' becomes as worn and 
arbitrary as the term ``pork barrel.''
  Is it ``corporate welfare'' for an Arizona road construction company 
to take a government check to build roads?
  Clearly, without the government money, it would not be building 
roads, so does that make it ``corporate welfare?''
  Is it ``corporate welfare'' for a defense contractor to take a 
government check to build aircraft? Clearly, without the government 
money, it would not be building military aircraft.
  If the key factor in identifying corporate welfare is the receipt of 
a government check, then America has a lot of companies depending upon 
corporate welfare.
  But what if the company receives no government check--not one thin 
dime from Uncle Sam?
  What if America decides that because it has become increasingly and 
dangerously dependent upon foreign energy, that we must establish 
programs and incentives to develop domestic sources of energy and to 
conserve energy?
  What if, instead of doling out government checks to specific 
corporations, we establish a program to lower the taxes of motorists 
who use gasoline blended with home-grown ethanol?
  That's exactly how the ethanol program works! Not one thin dime from 
the government goes to ethanol producers such as ADM. We do not pick 
the winners and losers.
  We do not influence, let alone decide or dictate who makes ethanol or 
who doesn't.
  Ethanol is produced by 35 companies with plants in 22 states. Many of 
these are farmer owned and operated cooperatives that support small 
towns and small businesses.
  Anybody under the sun in America can produce ethanol, and the fact 
is, one of the biggest growth areas in ethanol production is coming 
from cooperatives.
  But no matter who makes ethanol, they will get absolutely no 
government funds from the ethanol program that my colleague from 
Arizona seeks to destroy through a tax hike.
  The ethanol program doesn't even fit the criteria outlined by the 
corporate subsidy reform bill introduced by Senator McCain.

[[Page S1755]]

  One key test under his bill is whether or not government spending 
benefits the public, as opposed to a narrow group of corporations. 
Numerous studies have demonstrated that ethanol incentives provide 
tremendous economic, energy, and environmental benefits to the public.
  Those who oppose the ethanol program are not trying to eliminate a 
subsidy; they are attempting to impose a tax increase upon America's 
motorists.
  And we all know that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and 
that is just exactly what will happen if the anti-ethanol forces win.
  Ask the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America what 
will happen. If you deny them the alternative of ethanol-blended 
gasoline as a supply option, many will no longer be able to compete 
with the major oil companies. Many independents will be forced out of 
business by big oil, and gasoline prices will rise.
  And rise indeed: According to recent economic analysis, the 
termination of the ethanol program would force motorists to pay an 
extra $3 billion for gasoline!
  The Midwest Governors Conference analysis of the ethanol program 
found that it provides a 20-1 return on investment. It adds $4.5 
billion annually to farm income, it reduces our trade deficit by $2 
billion, and it generates $4 billion in increased federal revenues.
  Does the ethanol program promote the public interest? Absolutely.
  Is the ethanol program ``corporate welfare?'' Absolutely not!
  There is not one shread of credibility to accusations that the 
ethanol program is corporate welfare.
  Unfortunately, many of us have been caught up with misinformation. 
Misinformation disseminated by big oil's massive brain washing-machine, 
with it's hyper spin cycle that fuels the engines of tabloid 
journalism.
  Again, it's a massive brain-washing-machine, with a hyper spin cycle. 
And you thought I was going to say it was a vast right wing conspiracy.
  Mr. President, a year or so ago, Senator McCain produced a white-
paper which analyzed and critiqued our nation's current defense 
planning assumptions which require us to be prepared to go it alone 
simultaneously fighting wars in two regions of the world, and do so 
with a win-win objective. He concluded that our financial and military 
resources are stretched too thinly to meet the demands of such a 
defense plan.
  We may not always agree, but Senator McCain rightfully takes a 
backseat to no one in his understanding of military affairs.
  I hope, therefore, he will take to heart my following comments which 
touch directly upon stretched military resources as well as the 
question of corporate welfare.
  Over 40 years ago, American oil producers convinced the federal 
government to impose oil import quotas and tariffs with the argument 
that we faced a national security crisis because we were importing a 
mere 10 percent of our oil.
  Today, our national security crisis is far more severe--we depend 
upon foreign energy for over 50 percent of our needs. I believe it's 
about 54 percent today.
  In 1995, the administration reported, and I quote:

       Growing import dependence increases U.S. vulnerability to a 
     supply disruption because non-OPEC sources lack surge 
     production capacity . . . petroleum imports threaten to 
     impair national security.

  Now, Mr. President, what I am about to share, will shed light, not 
only upon Senator McCain's concern about our military resources being 
spread too thin, but also upon the very reason our petroleum imports 
continue to grow and continue to jeopardize our national security.
  In 1987, Secretary of Navy, John Lehman, stated that our total cost 
of protecting the Persian Gulf oil supply lines--forces, training, 
operations, bases and support--amounted to 20 percent of our total 
military budget.
  That amounted to $40 billion per year that taxpayers were being 
forced to pay to defend foreign oil.
  By any definition, this $40 billion, gold-plated military escort 
service is a subsidy directly benefiting the major oil companies and 
the Persian Gulf oil producing nations.
  So I ask, isn't this $40 billion military subsidy simply corporate 
welfare for an exclusive club of oil companies?
  And doesn't the expenditure of 20 percent of our military budget to 
defend oil supply lines partly explain the reason for and suggest 
solutions to the problems detailed in Senator McCain's white paper?
  What would happen if the oil companies, or even the oil producing 
nations, were required to pay for this $40 billion per year military 
escort service?
  Well, I can hear the oil importers already saying, ``You either pay 
me now, or pay me later. We'll just pass on the cost to the American 
consumer with high gasoline costs.''
  My answer to that is ``maybe so, but let's take a look at all the 
trade-offs.''
  I ask my colleagues to think about this. One analysis concluded that 
this $40 billion taxpayer subsidy put the real cost of imported Persian 
Gulf oil at $140 per barrel, during a time that U.S. domestic producers 
were getting about $18 per barrel.
  Is it any wonder that thousands of American independent oil producers 
were forced out of business during the 1980's?
  Isn't it just a little ironic that these taxpaying oil producers were 
being forced to subsidize the very foreign competition that was running 
them out of business?
  And, if they were still producing today, would we be so reliant upon 
foreign oil?
  Which, in turn, leads to the question of whether or not we would feel 
so compelled to devote 20 percent of our military resources to the 
Persian Gulf in the first place.
  Would it not make more sense to let the market place take over by 
requiring someone other than the taxpayer to pay for this military 
escort service?
  Wouldn't this put Oklahoma and Texas producers back in business?
  And to cap it all off, think of this: Most of this subsidized Persian 
Gulf oil goes not to the United States, but to our economic competitors 
in Europe and Japan! So here we are, subsidizing the energy of our 
foreign manufacturing competitors so that they can better undercut 
American manufacturers.
  I'm not sure what we have here: Corporate welfare? Foreign aid? Or is 
it Foreign corporate welfare?
  Picking up on John Lehman's admission that we must devote 20 percent 
of our military budget to protect Persian Gulf oil supply lines, it 
goes without saying that we are also talking about the lives of our 
sons and daughters who bravely, and honorably serve in our military.
  And as inflammatory as this may sound to some, the truth is not one 
of our sons and daughters have ever been asked to sacrifice life or 
limb to defend the supply lines and production of America's home-grown 
domestic fuel--ethanol.
  Isn't that worth something? Isn't that worth a mere 5.4 cent 
exemption from highway taxes?
  Or is your thirst of tax increases too great to resist?
  Are we that blind? Just a few months ago, officials of a Persian Gulf 
nation admitted publicly that they wanted American oil companies to 
establish operations in their country. Why? Because they knew the U.S. 
military would then most definitely come to the rescue if that country 
faced aggressive military action from a neighboring country.
  A few months ago, four of our nation's top national security experts 
wrote to congressional leaders calling for increased support for 
ethanol.
  They warned, and I quote:

       The domestic ethanol industry provides fuels that reduce 
     imports . . . We implore Congress of the United States to 
     continue and indeed strengthen tax incentives for the ethanol 
     industry.
       To do otherwise would threaten America's national and 
     economic security, weaken its plans to improve the 
     environment and relinquish U.S. world-wide leadership in the 
     biofuels area.

  This letter was signed by: General Lee Butler USAF (Ret.) Former 
Commander, Strategic Air Command, Desert Storm; R. James Woolsey, 
Former Director of the CIA; Robert McFarland, Former National Security 
Advisor to the President; and Admiral Thomas Moorer USN (Ret.), Former 
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Mr. President, by using ethanol, Americans reduce by 98,000 barrels a 
day, the amount of oil and MTBE that must be imported.
  But the ethanol program is just one of many government programs 
implemented to reduce our dependence upon

[[Page S1756]]

foreign energy. Others include: Mass transit subsidies, energy 
efficiency and conservation programs, alternative fuel vehicle 
incentives, subsidies to help oil and gas producers to develop advanced 
technologies for exploration and extraction, programs to promote 
natural gas use, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Let's face it, no single government program can eliminate dependence 
upon foreign oil entirely, but these various initiatives, taken 
together as a whole, can help reduce our vulnerability.
  I ask my friends from oil and gas states:
  Is your problem the farmer and ethanol producer from the middle west?
  Or is it OPEC and the oil sheiks from the Middle East?
  Isn't it time we started pulling together, instead of pulling apart?
  Or do you propose giving up and surrendering to the OPEC oil sheiks 
by eliminating all energy and conservation programs?
  If so, be prepared to face the termination of the 14 cent highway 
excise tax exemption for natural gas.
  Be prepared for the termination of the highway tax brake for propane, 
liquefied natural gas, and methanol which now only pay 13.6 cents, 11.9 
cents and 9.15 cents respectively, instead of the full 18.3 cents per 
gallon.
  Be prepared for the termination of the percentage depletion allowance 
for domestic producers, which drains the treasury to the tune of $900 
million per year.
  And while my colleagues from oil and gas states think about this, 
could they please tell us, are these tax breaks and subsidies programs 
to promote energy independence, or are they merely forms of corporate 
welfare?
  What about mass transit subsidies. I have seen figures that show some 
mass transit taxpayer subsidies, for capital and operations, can run as 
high as $15 per rider. If you assume a 20 mile ride, that comes out to 
a government subsidy of 75 cents per rider/mile.
  Compare the ethanol investment. Ethanol has transported people 200 
billion miles at a cost to taxpayers of about 2.5 cents per mile. It's 
even less if you subtract the savings to our farm programs.
  So, which does a better job of reducing our dependence on foreign 
energy?
  Ethanol at 2.5 cents a mile, or mass transit that can cost as high as 
75 cents a mile?
  We could terminate all these programs aimed at reducing our 
dependence upon foreign oil.
  Are we that short-sighted? Are we that parochial? I think not.
  I know we're not, because 35 Republican and 34 Democratic Senators 
voted to save the ethanol program extension. Senate Republican Leader 
Lott and Democratic Leader Daschle are both committed to extending this 
program. House Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt have both 
pledged to support the ethanol program.
  And I know first hand, that both President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore support the ethanol extension because they both called me at my 
farm last year to pledge their support.
  It would be true folly to destroy one of the few bright spots in our 
fight for energy independence.
  Ethanol production has become highly energy efficient. Today, it 
takes 100 Btu's to yield 135 Btu's of ethanol. In sharp contrast, it 
takes 100 Btu's to produce 85 Btu's of gasoline or 55 Btu's of 
methanol.
  And ethanol helps reduce every mobile source pollutant that EPA 
regulates. It reduces carbon monoxide, ozone, NOX and toxic 
emissions.
  Furthermore, the Department of Energy and the Argonne National 
Laboratory recently finished a study entitled, ``Fuel-Cycle Fossil 
Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from 
Midwest Corn.'' This study reported that ethanol use results in a 50-60 
percent reduction in fossil energy use and a 35-46 percent reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me and voting against 
the McCain tax hike amendment.
  Ethanol is good for national security. It is good for the 
environment. It is good for America's motorists. It is good for our 
balance of trade. It is good for our farm economy.
  I have said it before, but it bears repeating. Ethanol is just plain 
good, good, good.
   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment to 
strike extension of the ethanol tax incentive from the federal highway 
bill. This program has proven its value to the nation in the past, and 
its continuation is important not only to the economic vitality of 
rural America, but also to the national goals of improving air quality 
and weaning the country from its dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
  Over the last 20 years, ethanol has grown from a good idea to a 
serious alternative fuel for American motorists. Its use today--over a 
billion gallons per year--significantly reduces our need to import 
foreign oil. As General Lee Butler has pointed out, every barrel of oil 
we import from the Middle East costs us, in real terms, more than $100 
The cost Americans pay at the pump for gasoline is not reflective of 
this extraordinary investment, which underscores the need to do even 
more to reduce our consumption of imported oil.
  In addition, clean-burning ethanol helps cities throughout the 
country achieve clean air standards inexpensively and easily, while 
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. And, in rural America, it 
provides jobs at a time when family farms are struggling to survive.
  Mr. President, less than a year ago, this body made clear its 
overwhelming support for renewable fuels when it defeated a similar 
amendment to the budget bill by a vote of 69 to 30. The Senate should 
reaffirm its support for this program just as resoundingly today.
  The only difference between last year and today is that today we are 
debating this tax incentive in the context of the transportation bill. 
In the past, some have raised the specter that this tax incentive could 
reduce the federal investment in our transportation infrastructure. I 
would like to dispel that argument once and for all.
  Last week, Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater wrote me that, 
``The Administration believes that the ethanol tax exemption does not 
reduce needed investments in roads, bridges, and transit. Furthermore, 
given the current balances in the Highway Trust Fund and projected 
revenues, continuation of the exemption will not affect future Federal 
spending on transportation projects.'' I ask unanimous consent that the 
entire letter from Secretary Slater be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Secretary of Transportation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1998.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: The Administration strongly supports 
     the use of alternate fuels as a meaningful way to address 
     some of the Nation's air quality, energy conservation and 
     balance of payment problems. The future of U.S. 
     transportation will depend heavily on alternative fuels. For 
     these reasons, the Administration is firmly in favor of 
     continuing an ethanol excise tax exemption.
       The Administration believes that the ethanol exemption does 
     not reduce needed investments in roads, bridges and transit. 
     Furthermore, given the current balances in the Highway Trust 
     Fund and projected revenues, continuation of the exemption 
     will not affect future Federal spending on transportation 
     projects.
       The extension of the tax exemption for ethanol use as a 
     highway motor fuel is part of the Administration's surface 
     transportation reauthorization proposal, S. 468, the National 
     Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency ACt (NEXTEA). 
     Our proposal would extend the current exemption provision 
     through September 30, 2006, because of the many benefits that 
     domestic ethanol production provides to the Nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rodney E. Slater.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Given the clear benefits of the ethanol tax incentive 
and the fact that it does not affect federal investments in 
transportation projects, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this amendment and helping to ensure that America has the tools to meet 
its energy, environmental and economic goals long into the future.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator McCain's position on 
this. I understand how he feels about it. I also appreciate the fact 
that he is willing to bring it up in such a fashion where he can make 
this points and we can move on to a vote on a motion to table. A number 
of Senators on both sides could come over and speak at

[[Page S1757]]

great length on this subject. But in the interest of trying to begin to 
move toward a conclusion and getting within, hopefully, a short period 
of time, the final votes before we would have the cloture vote so we 
can see what is exactly left to be done on this bill.

  In order to get that accomplished, I move to table amendment No. 1968 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table Amendment No. 1968.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--26

     Byrd
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Nickles
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     Sessions
     Shelby
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1968) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I now enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in a 
colloquy in order to clarify that a specific kind of innovative 
materials research will be eligible for funding under this bill.
  Many of our Nation's bridges have been in service far longer than 
originally planned. As a result, they have fallen into a state of 
serious disrepair. Many of them are in need of outright replacement. 
Over the past several years, the Federal Government has supported 
research in an effort to develop a new, stronger, and more 
environmentally sensitive material for use in bridge construction. One 
of the most promising developments in this area is a new technology 
known as ``wood composites.'' These materials combine wood, an abundant 
and renewable resource, with modern composites to give the wood 
significantly more strength and durability.
  I am proud to say that the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered 
Wood Composites Center has been a leader in developing wood composite 
technologies, and it has done so in part with research funds from the 
National Science Foundation. That research has now advanced to the 
point where composite-reinforced wood is being used in pilot projects 
in Maine and elsewhere in the United States.
  Wood composites have shown a great deal of promise as a means of 
providing low-cost, extremely durable, and environmentally safe 
material for building and repairing bridges. Given its performance and 
its promise, we should be enthusiastically promoting further 
development of this exciting new technology.
  I have discussed with the chairman my strong support for ensuring 
that the research involving wood composites, specifically wood fiber-
reinforced plastic composites, will be eligible for funding under the 
sections of this legislation. Specifically, the bill authorizes funding 
to: First, establish four new national university transportation 
centers; second, section 2005 of the bill authorizes funding for the 
Department of Transportation's basic research and technology programs 
over the next 6 years; third, section 2001 of the bill authorizes 
funding for the Federal Highway Administration's National Technology 
Deployment Initiatives and Partnership Program; and, finally, section 
2013 of the legislation authorizes funding for an innovative bridge 
research and construction program.
  The purpose of my colloquy with the distinguished chairman today is 
to confirm my understanding that the ongoing research involving wood 
FRP composites is eligible for funding under all of these sections of 
the ISTEA reauthorization bill, and further that the University of 
Maine's Wood Composites Center will be eligible to apply for 
designation as one of the new NUTCs authorized in the bill.
  I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from Rhode Island, 
the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, for any reassurances 
that he might be able to give me in this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to confirm the understanding of the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, that, in fact, wood composite research 
involving so-called wood FRP composites is eligible to compete for 
funding under those sections of the ISTEA II legislation that she 
mentioned.
  Furthermore, I want to confirm for the Senator that the Advanced 
Engineered Wood Composites Center at the University of Maine is 
eligible to apply for designation by the Federal Highway Administration 
as one of the four new national university transportation centers 
authorized by the ISTEA legislation as well.
  I understand there is a great deal of excitement about this new, 
emerging field of wood composite research. Certainly I believe that the 
Federal Government should be actively encouraging and providing funding 
for this innovative activity, which would be beneficial to rebuilding 
many of our bridges across our country.
  Mr. President, I look forward to continuing to work with Senator 
Collins during the committee conference on this matter, and I want to 
express my appreciation to her for her efforts in bringing this matter 
to my attention.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee. I invite both the distinguished chairman and the 
distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, to come to the 
University of Maine sometime and look at the fabulous research that is 
being done in this area. It is extremely exciting. The wood reinforced 
with these composites is stronger than steel. I am very proud of the 
research that is going on in my State and I believe it can contribute 
greatly to the transportation future of this country.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is that all in Orono?
  Ms. COLLINS. It is.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The home of black bears, I believe.
  Ms. COLLINS. That's right.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my gracious friend from Maine, I accept her 
invitation. I would love to see this process, not only because anyone 
would like to visit Maine, but, second, it is mutually beneficial to 
lots of other States which have a very prominent reinforced products 
industry. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. We will throw in a lobster dinner 
as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It's a deal.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S1758]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we temporarily 
lay aside the Finance amendment currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1969 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To allow entities and persons to comply with court orders 
   relating to disadvantaged business enterprises and to require the 
  Comptroller General to carry out a biennial review of the impact of 
    complying with requirements relating to disadvantaged business 
                              enterprises)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an amendment 
numbered 1969 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 79, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (e) Compliance With Court Orders.--Nothing in this section 
     limits the eligibility of an entity or person to receive 
     funds made available under titles I and II of this Act, if 
     the entity or person is prevented, in whole or in part, from 
     complying with subsection (a) because a Federal court issues 
     a final order in which the court finds that the requirement 
     of subsection (a), or the program established under 
     subsection (a), is unconstitutional.
       (f) Review by Comptroller General.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall conduct a review of, and 
     publish and report to Congress findings and conclusions on, 
     the impact throughout the United States of administering the 
     requirement of subsection (a), including an analysis of--
       (1) in the case of small business concerns certified in 
     each State under subsection (d) as owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals--
       (A) the number of the small business concerns; and
       (B) the participation rates of the small business concerns 
     in prime contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I and 
     II of this Act;
       (2) in the case of small business concerns described in 
     paragraph (1) that receive prime contracts and subcontracts 
     funded under titles I and II of this Act--
       (A) the number of the small business concerns;
       (B) the annual gross receipts of the small business 
     concerns; and
       (C) the net worth of socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals that own and control the small 
     business concerns;
       (3) in the case of small business concerns described in 
     paragraph (1) that do not receive prime contracts and 
     subcontracts funded under titles I and II of this Act--
       (A) the annual gross receipts of the small business 
     concerns; and
       (B) the net worth of socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals that own and control the small 
     business concerns;
       (4) in the case of business concerns that receive prime 
     contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I and II of 
     this Act, other than small business concerns described in 
     paragraph (2)--
       (A) the annual gross receipts of the business concerns; and
       (B) the net worth of individuals that own and control the 
     business concerns;
       (5) the rate of graduation from any programs carried out to 
     comply with the requirement of subsection (a) for small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals;
       (6) the overall cost of administering the requirement of 
     subsection (a), including administrative costs, certification 
     costs, additional construction costs, and litigation costs;
       (7) any discrimination, on the basis of race, color, 
     national origin, or sex, against small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals;
       (8)(A) any other factors limiting the ability of small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals to compete for prime 
     contracts and subcontracts funded under titles I and II of 
     this Act; and
       (B) the extent to which any of those factors are caused, in 
     whole or in part, by discrimination based on race, color, 
     national origin, or sex;
       (9) any discrimination, on the basis of race, color, 
     national origin, or sex, against construction companies owned 
     and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals in public and private transportation contracting 
     and the financial, credit, insurance, and bond markets;
       (10) the impact on small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals of--
       (A) the issuance of a final order described in subsection 
     (e) by a Federal court that suspends a program established 
     under subsection (a); or
       (B) the repeal or suspension of State or local 
     disadvantaged business enterprise programs; and
       (11) the impact of the requirement of subsection (a), and 
     any program carried out to comply with subsection (a), on 
     competition and the creation of jobs, including the creation 
     of jobs for socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment I send to the desk has 
been cleared, I am told, by both Senator Chafee, the chairman of the 
committee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking minority member. It is my 
understanding there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kentucky deals with the so-called Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
Program. I want to emphasize this McConnell amendment is not the same 
as the earlier McConnell amendment which we voted on a week ago. This 
new amendment would clarify Department of Transportation policy with 
regard to grant recipients who are under a Federal court order.
  It also would require a new GAO study of the DBE program and of 
discrimination against DBEs in general.
  Mr. President, the Senator has made a number of modifications to 
this. It is an amendment we are prepared to accept. I thank him for 
working out these modifications with us.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment has been worked out and 
cleared on our side.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say briefly that this amendment 
is simple, fair and noncontroversial, as evidenced by the fact that my 
colleagues have signed off on it.
  It says two things:
  First, no State or local transit authority will lose its ISTEA 
funding simply because it suspends the DBE Program in response to a 
court order declaring the program unconstitutional.
  Second, my amendment asks GAO to study the program and lets Congress 
know how the program is working to ensure it genuinely helps 
disadvantaged women and minorities.
  Even though ISTEA and the DBE program were declared unconstitutional 
last summer by the federal court in Colorado, this legislative body 
chose to reauthorize the program because the Secretary of 
Transportation and the Attorney General promised us that any possible 
problems with the program had been cleaned up under the new proposed 
regulations.
  The Senate accepted the Secretary and the Attorney General at their 
word. As my good friend and respected colleague from New Mexico stated 
on the floor last Thursday night:

       I say to the administration very clearly right now: You 
     have now put the signature of the Attorney General of the 
     United States and the Secretary of [Transportation] on the 
     answer to . . . seven questions [about the constitutionality 
     of this program]. And this Senator, and I think a number of 
     other Senators, is going to be voting to keep the provisions 
     in the bill based on these kinds of assurances. . . . If, in 
     fact, it comes out in a few months that the regulations are 
     not being interpreted in the way suggested here, then I 
     assure you that we will change them. . . . This better become 
     a very, very, serious challenge to the administration as they 
     finally implemented this program.

  I appreciate the candor of my friend, Mr. Domenici. Consistent with 
that candor and with that challenge, my amendment simply says that the 
Senate is taking the administration at its word.
  And, if for any reason, the program is not fixed, and more courts 
strike down the program, then my amendment ensures that we will not 
punish the States for complying with federal court orders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If

[[Page S1759]]

not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1969) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                NEPA Process and Transportation Projects

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 
a few minutes on the need to bring some common sense and reason to the 
environmental permitting process for transportation projects. I am 
pleased to say that we have at least begun a debate on this issue and 
that a bipartisan effort to improve the environmental review process 
has taken place.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am very 
familiar with the planning and construction process for highway and 
bridge projects. As such, I have been disturbed by statistics showing 
that it takes 10 years to plan, design and construct a typical 
transportation project in this country.
  Why does it take so long to plan a project? The answer lies in the 
multiple layers of agency evaluations on the impacts of various modes 
and/or alignment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). While it would be sensible and efficient if the NEPA process 
established a uniform set of regulations and submittal documents 
nationwide, this has not been the case.
  For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their 
companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval 
process, forcing separate reviews of separate regulations and requiring 
planners to answer requests for separate additional information. Also, 
each of these agencies issues approvals according to separate 
schedules. The result: the time period between project beginning to 
completion has grown to at least 10 years, assuming that the project is 
non-controversial and there is adequate funding available. If either of 
these assumptions is not the case, the time period could be even 
longer.
  I am sure that if Senators contacted their own state transportation 
departments, they would be dismayed by the number of transportation 
projects that are delayed due to overlapping and often redundant 
regulatory reviews and processes. These delays increase costs and 
postpone needed safety and traffic improvements that would save lives. 
Clearly, this process from start to finish is too long and too 
cumbersome, often taking eight years just to complete the planning, 
review and design phases of a project.
  There are numerous examples to illustrate why the current system is 
broken. One of these examples is from my home state of New Hampshire. 
The Nashua Circumferential Highway project was in the planning and 
environmental review phase for more than 10 years and had received the 
necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers when, at the eleventh 
hour, EPA stepped in and exercised its veto authority. EPA vetoed the 
project even though a $31 million environmental mitigation package was 
committed by the state. A scaled back version of this project is 
finally back on the table. However, many years and a significant amount 
of resources were unnecessarily wasted. This is just one of many 
fiascoes that have occurred all over the country.
  While I think the language in S. 1173 represents a good first step, I 
still believe we could do more to streamline and improve the review 
process without circumventing protections for the environment. 
Unfortunately, there are certain groups who consider the National 
Environmental Policy Act to be a sacred statute in which no changes are 
warranted. I disagree with that viewpoint.
  I had intended to offer my own NEPA streamlining amendment today 
which would greatly improve the environmental review process for 
highway-related projects. In fact, my amendment is endorsed by numerous 
professional organizations involved in transportation as well as the 
association of state departments of transportation--the people who have 
first-hand knowledge and experience in the planning and design of a 
project. When it takes an average of eight years to complete the 
environmental review process, there is something wrong with the system.
  Many of these wasteful endeavors could have been avoided if a 
coordinated interagency review procedure was established early in the 
process. I think it is also important to establish a framework with 
mutually agreed upon deadlines for each agency to take action, as well 
as establish an effective dispute resolution process. As it stands now, 
often times there is no Federal-State coordinated review process 
established from the beginning, no set timetables for meeting certain 
reviews or permit approvals, and no system for resolving disputes in a 
timely manner.
  We need to design a better system that protects both the taxpayers' 
investment and the environment. I do not buy the argument that making 
common sense reforms to the NEPA review process is in any way 
compromising environmental protection.
  In conclusion, I hope we can continue working on improvements to the 
planning process as the ISTEA bill makes its way through conference. 
The system is ``broke'' and needs fixing. Thank you, Mr. President, and 
I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for 
raising this important issue on the ISTEA bill. I completely agree with 
his statement about the need to reform the NEPA review process as it 
pertains to transportation projects. In fact, the National 
Environmental Policy Act as a whole needs to be looked at for possible 
improvements. I fully support the goals and intent behind NEPA, but I 
also believe that States are capable of carrying out NEPA's 
requirements when planning and reviewing various transportation 
projects within their borders.
  While I agree with my friend that S. 1173 makes good progress toward 
streamlining the environmental review process, I share his concerns 
that it might not go far enough in resolving this problem. It is clear 
we need a more effective environmental coordination process that 
results in less staff time and expense for all the agencies and 
stakeholders in the NEPA process.
  If we are successful in this effort, we will hopefully reduce the 
time it now takes in reaching final decisions and receiving project 
approvals and permits, saving resources and lives. Therefore, I 
congratulate my colleague on his efforts thus far and encourage him to 
pursue additional improvements to the current NEPA review process. At 
this time, Mr. President, I yield back to my friend from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the majority 
leader for his comments and support on this issue as we move toward 
Senate passage and conference committee deliberations on the ISTEA 
legislation. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three 
members of my staff be permitted to have access to the floor for 
further consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are down to the point where this 
Senator wants to get some information. I don't serve on this committee, 
so I want to serve notice to the managers that I have a series of 
questions I want to ask them.
  I keep being told that the money under this bill is allocated, that 
there is no way at all to consider any amendments that might deal with 
the marine highway system.
  So, in the course of the next few hours, I intend to find out what 
has happened to the money that is in this bill and why there is no 
money to fulfill the needs of our State.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, until I get the information that 
my staff is bringing.

[[Page S1760]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1963

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments be in order to the Finance amendment and the amendment be 
agreed to with a motion to reconsider being laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1963) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 1970 through 1973, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a series of technical amendments 
here that are agreeable to both sides, and I will have them considered 
en bloc. The first is an amendment by Senator Byrd dealing with a study 
of the highway and bridge needs and road needs of the country. The 
second is a Moseley-Braun safety amendment. The third is a Sarbanes 
amendment dealing with travel plazas. The fourth amendment is from 
Senator Moynihan dealing with the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment 
Corporation board of directors and the membership of that board.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 1970 through 1973 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be considered en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1970 through 1973) are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1970

   (Purpose: To impose certain requirements concerning the biennial 
                infrastructure investment needs report)

       Beginning on page 369, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 370, line 4, and insert the following:

     ``Sec. 509. Infrastructure investment needs report

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than January 31, 1999, and 
     January 31 of every second year thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on--
       ``(1) estimates of the future highway and bridge needs of 
     the United States; and
       ``(2) the backlog of current highway and bridge needs.
       ``(b) Format.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each report under subsection (a) shall, 
     at a minimum, include explanatory materials, data, and tables 
     comparable in format to the report submitted in 1995 under 
     section 307(h) (as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this section).

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to keep the 
Congress and the American people informed about the real condition of 
our National Highway System.
  Under current law, the Secretary of Transportation is required to 
sent a biannual report to the Congress on the performance and 
conditions of America's highways.
  Unfortunately, the report that was due at the beginning of last year 
was not completed and delivered to the Congress until last week, some 
18 months late. Moreover, the new report uses an entire new set of 
measures that make it impossible to determine whether the condition of 
our roadways has improved or declined. Indeed, the new report abandons 
the format utilized in prior years which provided direct and clear data 
on the condition of our highways and bridges. This data enabled all 
citizens and policy makers to measure the progress of lack of progress 
that had been made on improving our highway system.
  This amendment would ensure that all future reports include data 
using the format that was used in prior years so that we can compare 
``apples to apples'' when formulating our national policy on highways.


                           amendment no. 1971

                  (Purpose: To improve highway safety)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ROADSIDE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Crash Cushions.--
       (1) Guidance.--The Secretary shall initiate and issue a 
     guidance regarding the benefits and safety performance of 
     redirective and nonredirective crash cushions in different 
     road applications, taking into consideration roadway 
     conditions, operating speed limits, the location of the crash 
     cushion in the right-of-way, and any other relevant factors. 
     The guidance shall include recommendations on the most 
     appropriate circumstances for utilization of redirective and 
     nonredirective crash cushions.
       (2) Use of guidance.--States shall use the guidance issued 
     under this subsection in evaluating the safety and cost-
     effectiveness of utilizing different crash cushion designs 
     and determining whether directive or nonredirective crash 
     cushions or other safety appurtenances should be installed at 
     specific highway locations.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 1972

(Purpose: To authorize the continuance of commercial operations at the 
        service plazas on the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway)

       At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 18  . CONTINUANCE OF COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS AT CERTAIN 
                   SERVICE PLAZAS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

       (a) Waiver.--Notwithstanding section 111 of title 23, 
     United States Code, and the agreements described in 
     subsection (b), at the request of the Maryland Transportation 
     Authority, the Secretary shall allow the continuance of 
     commercial operations at the service plazas on the John F. 
     Kennedy Memorial Highway on Interstate Route 95.
       (b) Agreements.--The agreements referred to in subsection 
     (a) are agreements between the Department of Transportation 
     of the State of Maryland and the Federal Highway 
     Administration concerning the highway described in subsection 
     (a).
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 1973

      (Purpose: To provide for the inclusion of the Secretary of 
  Transportation and Federal Railroad Administrator on the Boards of 
Directors of the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation and the 
                Union Station Redevelopment Corporation)

       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.   . PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD 
                   OF DIRECTORS.

       Section 1069(gg) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2011) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``(3) In furtherance of the 
     redevelopment of the James A. Farley Post Office Building in 
     the city of New York, New York, into an intermodal 
     transportation facility and commercial center, the Secretary 
     of Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administrator, and 
     their designees are authorized to serve as ex officio members 
     of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation.''

     SEC.   . UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF 
                   DIRECTORS.

       Subchapter I of chapter 18 of title 40 of the United States 
     Code is amended by adding a new section at the end thereof as 
     follows:
       ``Section 820. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation
       ``To further the rehabilitation, redevelopment and 
     operation of the Union Station complex, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administrator, and their 
     designees are authorized to serve as ex officio members of 
     the Board of Directors of the Union Station Redevelopment 
     Corporation.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1970 through 1973), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


     Amendments Nos. 1974 and 1975, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask 
for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1974 and 1975, en bloc, to amendment No. 
     1676.

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

[[Page S1761]]

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1974

(Purpose: To reduce the amounts authorized to be appropriated for motor 
                            carrier safety)

       On page 91, line 23, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,620,000''.
       On page 91, line 24, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,620,000''.
       On page 91, line 25, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,620,000''.
       On page 92, line 1, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,320,000''.
       On page 92, line 2, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,320,000''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 1975

       On page 108, line 14, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(A)(i)''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the one amendment on behalf of Senator 
McCain deals with the Commerce Committee's budget allocation.
  The other is on behalf of myself, and it is a truly technical 
modification of the bill by changing a site reference. It is necessary 
to comply with the contract authority levels for highway safety 
programs.
  Both of these amendments have been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1974 and 1975), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I seek the attention of the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island for a moment. Mr. President, I am about ready 
to send an amendment to the desk.


                Amendment No. 1976 to Amendment No. 1676

       (Purpose: To reauthorize the ferry discretionary program)

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1976 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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.    . REAUTHORIZATION OF FERRY AND FERRY TERMINAL 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Section 1064(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note) is 
     amended by striking ``$14,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through ``this section'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$30,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $25,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1999, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $30,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 in carrying out this 
     section, at least $12,000,000 of which in each such fiscal 
     year shall be obligated for the construction of ferry boats, 
     terminal facilities and approaches to such facilities within 
     marine highway systems that are part of the National Highway 
     System''.
       (b) In addition to the obligation authority provided in 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $20,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003 for the ferry boat and ferry terminal facility 
     program under section 1064 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note).

     SEC.    . REPORT ON UTILIZATION POTENTIAL.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
     study of ferry transportation in the United States and its 
     possessions--
       (1) to identify existing ferry operations, including--
       (A) the locations and routes served;
       (B) the name, United States official number, and a 
     description of each vessel operated as a ferry;
       (C) the source and amount, if any, of funds derived from 
     Federal, State, or local government sources supporting ferry 
     construction or operations;
       (D) the impact of ferry transportation on local and 
     regional economies; and
       (E) the potential for use of high-speed ferry services.
       (2) identify potential domestic ferry routes in the United 
     States and its possessions and to develop information on 
     those routes, including--
       (A) locations and routes that might be served;
       (B) estimates of capacity required;
       (C) estimates of capital costs of developing these routes;
       (D) estimates of annual operating costs for these routes;
       (E) estimates of the economic impact of these routes on 
     local and regional economies; and
       (F) the potential for use of high-speed ferry services.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall report the results of the 
     study under subsection (a) within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the United States Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United 
     States House of Representatives.
       (c) After reporting the results of the study required by 
     paragraph (b), the Secretary of Transportation shall meet 
     with the relevant state and municipal planning organizations 
     to discuss the results of the study and the availability of 
     resources, both Federal and State, for providing marine ferry 
     service.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my amendment will extend and provide a 
modest increase for the national ferry program under section 1064 of 
the previous ISTEA bill. The old ferry program provided $18 million a 
year nationwide in contract authority for ferry boat and ferry terminal 
construction. We have raised that to an average of $30 million per year 
in contract authority and in addition have authorized $20 million to be 
appropriated. The amendment would require that $12 million per year of 
the $30 million of contract authority be used for ferries, ferry 
terminals, and approaches to ferry terminals within marine highway 
systems which are part of the national highway system. As many of my 
colleagues know, the Alaska Marine Highway System is unique in this 
nation in that Congress has deemed it important enough to designate it 
as part of the national highway system. Alaska is by far the largest 
state in the union. We possess half of all the coastline, twenty 
percent of all the border, and almost half of all the federal lands in 
the United States.
  For these and other reasons, the amendment is of particular 
importance to Alaska. Alaska has very few roads. In fact, our State 
capitol lies within an area of Alaska the size of West Virginia which 
contains no intercity roads at all. Practically all of this land is 
federally-owned, and the present Administration has made it very 
difficult for us to build roads on federal lands in Alaska. Ferries are 
the only form of surface transportation for Alaskans in this area. The 
ferries currently serving Alaska are almost thirty years old. The 
oldest ones have been in service since the Kennedy Administration. 
These vessels must be replaced soon.
  I would also like to point out that twenty percent of the nation's 
oil comes from Alaska. Our oil produces 25 million gallons of gasoline 
each day. This translates to $1.6 billion dollars in gas taxes going 
straight to the federal Treasury, for which Alaska gets no credit 
whatsoever. This money is on top of the income taxes paid into the 
Treasury by the oil companies and their employees in my state. Alaska 
gets no credit in the highway formula for fueling the nation's cars. 
While this amendment does not help us build more roads, it will improve 
transportation for many Alaskans.
  A number of Senators (Inouye, Akaka, Lautenberg, Breaux, Murray, 
Faircloth, Kerry, Kennedy, Snowe, Collins, Moynihan, Helms, and Reed) 
had joined Senator Murkowski and me in an earlier amendment that would 
have provided $50 million per year in contract authority for ferries. 
While this compromise does not provide all of the funding needed for 
ferries nationwide, it is an improvement over the existing program.
  Mr. President, again, this will amend the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization for the ferries and ferry 
terminals. It has been under discussion here for some time. I am 
delighted that we now have an allocation of contract authority that 
could be applied to this. It also provides for an authorization for 
appropriations for the balance of the months we needed for the 
circumstances I described previously.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment the staffs and I thank 
Senator Chafee.
  Mr. President, Ferries are a small but extremely important part of 
our transportation system. This amendment reauthorizes the ferry 
discretionary program at $30 million per year, with an authorization to 
appropriate $20 million more annually, and

[[Page S1762]]

it calls on the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a thorough 
review of existing ferry services and potential new routes, and to both 
report back to Congress and to discuss his findings with interested 
local and state governments. It is our hope this will both maintain 
this important link in our transportation chain, and stimulate thought 
and action toward both standard and high-speed ferries as cost 
effective and environmentally sensitive alternatives for traditional 
solutions such as bridges and causeways. Included is a provision 
setting aside $12 million for ferry systems that are in the national 
highway system.
  Mr. President, in my state of Alaska, where roads are few and far 
between our ferry system--the Alaska Marine Highway System--is the only 
scheduled transportation link between many island communities which are 
not connected by roads. Many of these villages are too small even to 
have the smallest of landing strips, and expensive float planes are the 
only other option for travel.
  It is absolutely irreplaceable. It carries senior citizens from their 
small communities to doctors' offices and hospitals in larger 
communities. It is how basketball and swimming and other sports teams 
from remote villages are able to reach out to meet and interact with 
other teams from other communities. It is how small communities receive 
their fresh milk, their fresh bread, and their canned goods and other 
foodstuffs. Most of these are fishing communities, and quite often the 
ferry system is now a fishermen sidelined by an engine breakdown will 
get his new parts so that he can get back to making a living for 
himself and his family.
  Mr. President, I could go on, but I trust the message is clear. In my 
state, the service provided by our ferry system is an integral part of 
the fabric of life. When I say it is irreplaceable, that is not just a 
figure of speech, it is the literal truth.
  In other states, Mr. President, ferry services may have slightly 
different impacts, but they are all equally essential. In Hawaii they 
offer a necessary alternative to a strained road system that is close 
to its limits. In the southeast, they quickly and safely evacuate those 
threatened by hurricanes. In the Pacific Northwest and in the 
northeastern states they move hundreds of thousands of vehicles and 
millions of passengers quickly and safely and with a minimum of 
pollution.
  In all, 25 states have benefited from the ferry discretionary program 
under ISTEA. In alphabetical order, these are: Alabama, Alaska, 
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, Maryland, North Carolina, 
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin islands have also received funds.
  Mr. President, that is an impressive list, but the sad fact is that 
the funding that has been available under this program is not keeping 
pace with the need. Ferries--like any vessel--are very expensive to 
operate, let alone the cost of maintaining the necessary shoreside 
facilities, and of expanding both those facilities and the capacity of 
our nation's ferries in response to increasing demand.
  Let me offer a little comparison here. The national highway program 
has paid for and is paying for the construction and replacement of over 
483,000 bridges over waterways of various sizes. In FY97 alone, almost 
$2 billion went to bridges. The ferry program was a puny $18 million--
less than one percent of the bridge dollars, and not nearly enough to 
do the job.
  And what of those communities that are beyond the reach of bridges 
and are dependent--literally dependent--on ferries? The communities may 
not be physically or reliably reachable by road, but they are full of 
American citizens who deserve the same priority treatment from Congress 
as those who are reliant on bridges.
  My amendment gives those communities the recognition and assistance 
they need and deserve. I urge the support of all my distinguished 
colleagues, and ask for it's immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1976) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 1951

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is a modification to amendment No. 
1951, which we adopted earlier in the day. It recognizes the changes 
that were made in various sections.
  I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 40, strike lines 10 through 15 and insert the 
     following:
     ``(other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out sections 
     502, 507, 509 and 511: $68,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; 
     $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1999, $4,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2000, $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, $1,500,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002, $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, pursuant to the consent agreement on March 
10, I will ask the clerk to report the cloture motion. But before he 
does that, I want to announce to all Senators that this will trigger 
the cloture vote that was postponed from Monday's session of the 
Senate. Assuming cloture is invoked then, all Senators will have an 
additional 4 hours to file with the clerk any additional first-degree 
amendments. Due to the lateness of the hour, we will amend the request 
in the closing remarks to reflect a new time of 10 a.m. tomorrow 
morning for the deadline on filing the amendments. I thank all Senators 
for their cooperation, and I particularly congratulate and thank the 
Senators managing the bill, Senators Chafee and Baucus. They have made 
good progress. I think maybe when we get this cloture vote, we can 
begin to see what amendments we have to consider and we can begin to 
bring this to closure.
  This will be the last vote of the evening. There will be another vote 
in the morning. This one will be on the McCain amendment, probably 
sometime between 10:30 and 11 o'clock.
  Therefore, I make that request.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the modified 
     committee amendment to S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation. Efficiency Act:
         Trent Lott, John H. Chafee, John Ashcroft, Larry E. 
           Craig, D. Nickles, Mike DeWine, Frank Murkowski, 
           Richard Shelby, Gordon Smith, R.F. Bennett, Craig 
           Thomas, Pat Roberts, Mitch McConnell, Conrad Burns, 
           Spencer Abraham, Jesse Helms.


                                  VOTE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the modified committee amendment to S. 1173, the ISTEA 
authorization bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 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
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan

[[Page S1763]]


     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Kyl
     McCain
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                Amendment No. 1977 To Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To add certain counties to the Appalachian region for the 
     purposes of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965)

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent we can now bring 
up an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland. 
I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Cleland, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1977 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam 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 end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 18____. ADDITIONS TO APPALACHIAN REGION.

       Section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
     1965 (40 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in the undesignated paragraph relating to Alabama, by 
     inserting ``Hale,'' after ``Franklin,'';
       (2) in the undesignated paragraph relating to Georgia--
       (A) by inserting ``Elbert,'' after ``Douglas,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``Hart,'' after ``Haralson,'';
       (3) in the undesignated paragraph relating to Mississippi, 
     by striking ``and Winston'' and inserting ``Winston, and 
     Yalobusha''; and
       (4) in the undesignated paragraph relating to Virginia--
       (A) by inserting ``Montgomery,'' after ``Lee,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``Rockbridge,'' after ``Pulaski,''.

  Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I would like to explain this briefly. 
Two counties in northeast Georgia are in Appalachia, Elbert County and 
Hart County. They opted out of the original act creating the Appalachia 
Regional Development Corridor in 1965. They now desire to enter on 
behalf of their counties. This amendment directs itself to two counties 
in Georgia that qualify in every respect and meet the standards of the 
law. I urge the amendment be agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a letter to me 
from the Appalachian Regional Commission be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                              Appalachian Regional Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 1998.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of March 10, 
     1998, requesting technical assistance regarding the economic 
     status of possible additional counties to be served by the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission. It should be noted that the 
     Congress has added only three counties to ARC since our early 
     formation.
       ARC uses four categories to describe the economic status of 
     our 399 counties: attainment (those counties that are 
     performing at national economic norms); competitive (those 
     counties that are near national norms but are not yet fully 
     at national averages); transitional counties (those counties 
     whose economies are still significantly below national levels 
     on key indicators but are not suffering from severe 
     distress); and distressed (those counties whose economies are 
     substantially below the national level of economic 
     performance).
       In making these determinations we examine unemployment, per 
     capita market income, and poverty rate. Distressed counties, 
     for example, have three-year unemployment rates that are at 
     least 150% of the national average, per capita market incomes 
     that are no more than two-thirds of the national average, and 
     poverty rates that are at least 150% of the national rate.
       If the ARC criteria were applied to the additional 
     counties, they would be categorized as follows: Hale County, 
     Alabama--distressed, Elbert County, Georgia--transitional, 
     Hart County, Georgia--transitional, Yalobusha County, 
     Mississippi--distressed, Montgomery County, Virginia--
     transitional, Rockbridge County, Virginia--transitional.
       I have attached a chart that shows the specific data for 
     each of these counties. If you have any questions, please let 
     me know.
           Sincerely,
                                              Jesse L. White, Jr.,
                                              Federal Co-Chairman.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1977) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. 
He worked long and hard on this amendment. It involves a lot of small--
five States are touched by this amendment--small rural areas. Without 
his leadership on it, it is not likely this matter would have been 
incorporated in this bill. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1979 to Amendment No. 1676

    (Purpose: To provide for the reconstruction of national defense 
              highways located outside the United States)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Stevens, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. 
     Murkowski, for himself and Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1979.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 43, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(xiii) amounts set aside under section 11____.
       On page 136, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 11____. NATIONAL DEFENSE HIGHWAYS OUTSIDE THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Reconstruction Projects.--If the Secretary determines, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, that a 
     highway, or a portion of a highway, located outside the 
     United States is important to the national defense, the 
     Secretary may carry out a project for reconstruction of the 
     highway or portion of highway.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, the Secretary may set aside not to exceed $16,000,000 
     from amounts to be apportioned under section 104(b)(1)(A) of 
     title 23, United States Code, to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability.--Funds made available under paragraph (1) 
     shall remain available until expended.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank the managers for accepting my 
amendment on the reconstruction of the Alaska Highway. The Alcan is the 
only road link between the contiguous states and Alaska. It was 
constructed in 1942 during World War II to respond to a critical 
strategic need for such a highway.
  This amendment adds language needed to fund the last stages of a 
multi-year reconstruction project on the Alcan, which runs 1,520 miles 
from Dawson Creek, British Columbia to Fairbanks, Alaska.
  The still-unfinished portion is the last 95 miles of the 325-mile 
northern, or ``Shakwak'' section, so-called because a good part of it 
runs through a geological formation called the Shakwak Trench.
  At this point, Mr. President, I want to provide a little of this 
highway's fascinating history. Since the British burned the Capitol 
here in Washington during the War of 1812, the United States' territory 
in the mainland of North America has suffered only one invasion. That 
invasion was during World War II, in Alaska.
  In 1940, construction began on Fort Richardson, outside Anchorage. 
However, immediately after the bombing of

[[Page S1764]]

Pearl Harbor, it became clear that Alaska had great strategic 
importance as a staging area for forces in the North Pacific. 
Construction on the Alcan began in the spring of 1942.
  In June 1942, Japanese aircraft bombed Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Four 
days later, they invaded and fortified sites on Attu and Kiska, two of 
the Aleutian Islands, which they held for nearly a full year before our 
forces liberated them.
  During the Japanese occupation of these U.S. islands, the Alcan was 
built. It provided a secure route to move essential supplies and 
equipment safe from German or Japanese submarines.
  In a feat of engineering that is still unprecedented, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers managed to build this 1,520-mile road across 
trackless wilderness in just eight months.
  At first, naturally, the Alcan was just a dirt road punched through 
trees and across the tundra by bulldozers. After the war, however, 
civilian contractors began the long task of upgrading to a graveled 
road that civilian vehicles could manage.
  But traffic continued to increase, with 79% of the traffic Americans 
on the way to Alaska and back. A gravel road just isn't up to the task.
  In 1977, the United States and Canada joined in an agreement in which 
the United States government committed to pay the costs of 
reconstructing the Alcan to a modern, paved standard, and Canada 
undertook to pay for all maintenance and upkeep, such as snow removal.
  In passing, Mr. President, let me note that where the U.S. commitment 
in that agreement has been approximately $20 million per year and is 
now dropping to $16 million per year, Canada spends $40 million to $50 
million per year on its portion of the highway agreement.
  Mr. President, if I may, I have a copy of that 1977 diplomatic 
agreement that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Department of


                                     External Affairs, Canada,

                                        Ottawa, February 11, 1977.
     Note No. GWU-156
     His Excellency Thomas O. Enders,
     Ambassador of the United States of America, Ottawa.
       Excellency, I have the honor to refer to your Note No. 11 
     of January 11, 1977, concerning bilateral cooperation in the 
     reconstruction of Canadian portions of the Alaska Highway.
       I am pleased to inform you that the Government of Canada 
     accepts the proposals set out in your Note and agrees that 
     your Note, together with its Annex, and this reply, which is 
     authentic in English and French, shall constitute an 
     agreement between our two Governments which shall enter into 
     force on today's date.
       Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest 
     consideration.
                                                  Donald Jamieson,
                          Secretary of State for External Affairs.
                                                    Embassy of the


                                     United States of America,

                                         Ottawa, January 11, 1977.
     No. 11
     Hon. Donald Jamieson,
     Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa.
       Sir: I have the honor to refer to the discussions between 
     representatives of our two governments regarding bilateral 
     cooperation in the reconstruction of Canadian portions of the 
     Alaska Highway.
       As a result of these discussions, I now have the honor to 
     propose that the conditions set forth in the attached annex, 
     which accord with the understandings reached between the 
     representatives of our two governments, should govern such 
     reconstruction. These conditions shall not affect continuing 
     obligations of the two governments regarding the status and 
     use of the Alaska Highway, Including the agreements effected 
     by exchanges of notes dated March 17 and 18, 1942; November 
     28 and December 7, 1942; and April 10, 1943
       If these conditions are acceptable to your government, I 
     propose that this note, together with its annex, and your 
     reply indicating such concurrence, shall constitute an 
     agreement between our two governments, which shall enter into 
     force on the date of your reply. Accept, Sir, the renewed 
     assurances of my highest consideration.

                                 ANNEX

       Agreed conditions regarding a program of cooperation 
     between the Government of the United States represented by 
     the Federal Highway Administrator, Department of 
     Transportation, and the Government of Canada, represented by 
     the Minister of Public Works, to improve certain highways in 
     Canada to facilitate transportation between and within their 
     respective countries, and to implement the purposes of 
     section 218 of Title 23, United States Code. These shall 
     apply only to the program authorized by that section.
       The Government of the United States and the Government of 
     Canada agree as follows:


                               article i

       For purposes of this Agreement:
       1. ``Highways'' means that portion of the Alaska Highway 
     from the Yukon-Alaska border to Haines Junction in Canada and 
     the Haines Cutoff Highway from Haines Junction in Canada to 
     the British Columbia-Alaska border.
       2. ``Reconstruction'' means the supervising, inspecting, 
     actual rebuilding, paving, and all other work incidental to 
     the reconstruction of the highways (except for providing 
     right-of-way), including but not limited to planning studies, 
     environmental studies, locating, surveying, plan and 
     specification preparation, contracting, financial control, 
     traffic control devices, and those utility relocations which 
     are the responsibility of the Canadian Government.
       3. ``Maintain such highways'' means to perform such work on 
     a year round basis as shall be necessary to keep the 
     completed highway and related facilities in a state of repair 
     and use equivalent to the standards to which they are 
     reconstructed under this Agreement.


                               article ii

       1. The United States and Canada agree to the reconstruction 
     of such Highways in accordance with standards agreed to by 
     them jointly in writing prior to commencement of 
     reconstruction.
       2. The United States will pay to Canada the cost of 
     reconstruction out of funds appropriated for that purpose by 
     the Congress of the United States and will
       (a) Inform Canada of the amount of funds appropriated from 
     time to time therefore in order that Canada may schedule and 
     perform the reconstruction or such part thereof or may from 
     time to time be paid for out of such appropriated funds,
       (b) Provide liaison with Canadian officials responsible for 
     the program to meet and discuss planning, programming and 
     scheduling of reconstruction, and
       (c) Process an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance 
     with the laws of the United States and of Canada,
       3. Canada will
       (a) Provide, without participation of the United States 
     funds appropriated for the reconstruction, all necessary 
     right-of-way for the reconstruction of such highways for a 
     period of 25 years from the date of entry into force of this 
     agreement and thereafter until five years (or such shorter 
     period as the parties may agree upon) after either party 
     shall have notified the other that the right-of-way is no 
     longer required for its purposes for the said highways, 
     whereupon this Agreement shall cease to have force or effect,
       (b) Not impose any highway toll, or permit any such toll to 
     be charged for the use of such highways by vehicles or 
     persons.
       (c) Not levy or assess, directly or indirectly, any fee, 
     tax, or other charge for the use of such highways by vehicles 
     or persons from the United States that does not apply equally 
     to vehicles or persons of Canada.
       (d) Continue to grant reciprocal recognition of vehicle 
     registrations and drivers' license in accordance with 
     agreements between responsible authorities in each country,
       (c) Maintain such highways after reconstruction while this 
     Agreement remains in force and effect,
       (f) Permit those performing the reconstruction to obtain 
     natural construction materials, such as gravel, rock and 
     earth fill, without cost to be used in the reconstruction, 
     provided that the materials required shall be obtained in 
     accordance with the directions and regulations of the 
     appropriate Department of the Government of Canada,
       (g) Perform all reconstruction engineering, including 
     preparation of Environmental Assessments and Statements, all 
     necessary surveys, and preparation of reconstruction plans, 
     specifications and estimates,
       (h) Commence the reconstruction only after receiving advice 
     from the United States that the Environmental Impact 
     Statement has been satisfactorily processed in accordance 
     with the laws of the United States,
       (i) Arrange for the reconstruction to be performed under 
     contracts awarded by competitive bidding insofar as possible 
     and without regard as to whether the contractors are American 
     or Canadian,
       (j) Supervise the reconstruction,
       (k) Obtain interim and final concurrence of the United 
     States in the following:
       (1) Programing and scheduling of work.
       (2) Scope, terms of reference and provisions of the 
     Environmental Assessment and Statement.
       (3) Alignment of the highways.
       (4) Contract plans, specifications and estimates.
       (5) Award of contracts.
       (6) Acceptance of projects for final payment.
       (l) Permit the reasonable access of authorized 
     representatives of the United States to the site of 
     reconstruction and will make available the accounts and 
     records relating to the reconstruction contracts, at all 
     reasonable times, for purposes of inspection, verification 
     and general monitoring of the reconstruction.
       4. (l) The United States and Canada will jointly consider 
     the settlement of claims by contractors or other persons 
     arising out of

[[Page S1765]]

     reconstruction contracts and the reconstruction or either of 
     them, and if any such claim cannot be resolved by agreement, 
     the same shall be determined by the Federal Court of Canada 
     in an action by or against Her Majesty the Queen in right of 
     Canada,
       (2) All legal costs, and other monies, paid out by Canada 
     to settle any such claim whether pursuant to a final judgment 
     of the Federal Court of Canada, or otherwise, shall be one of 
     the costs of reconstruction for the purposes of this 
     Agreement.
       (3) The United States shall not be liable for the payment 
     of such claims or judgments to the extent that they are held 
     by the Federal Court of Canada to be the result of negligence 
     on the part of Canada or its employees during the 
     administration of the reconstruction.
       5. The United States and Canada jointly will develop 
     operating procedures consistent with this Agreement, 
     including procedures for resolving disputes between the 
     parties.


                              article iii

       This Agreement shall not be construed so as to vest in the 
     United States any proprietary interest in the highways, and 
     upon completion of the project, or any part thereof, the 
     highways shall remain, in all respects, an integral part of 
     the Canadian Highway System.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The U.S. commitment to reconstruct the Alcan is only 
logical. The Alcan is an international highway from one part of the 
United States to another. It is considered as a national defense 
highway, and it is of direct benefit not only to Alaska, but to the 
United States as a whole.
  This is not an Alaska issue, Madam President. This is a project 
undertaken by the United States Government--a project that benefits the 
country as a whole and which protects our strategic interests. More 
importantly, it is one which we should now complete.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, this amendment gives the Secretary of 
Transportation the authority to fulfill our international treaty 
obligations. It deals with the so-called highway between Canada and 
Alaska. It has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1979) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 1716 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To provide for the preservation of historic covered bridges 
                         in the United States)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
1716.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1716 to amendment No. 
     1676.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is located in the March 6, 1998, edition 
of the Record.)


                    Amendment No. 1716, As Modified

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I have a modification to the amendment 
at the desk, and I ask that it be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 11____. NATIONAL HISTORIC COVERED BRIDGE PRESERVATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered bridge.--The term ``covered bridge''--
       (A) means a roofed bridge that is made primarily of wood; 
     and
       (B) includes the roof, flooring, trusses, joints, walls, 
     piers, footings, walkways, support structures, arch systems, 
     and underlying land.
       (2) Historic covered bridge.--The term ``historic covered 
     bridge'' means a covered bridge that--
       (A) is at least 50 years old; or
       (B) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
       (b) Historic Covered Bridge Preservation.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) develop and maintain a list of historic covered 
     bridges;
       (2) collect and disseminate information concerning historic 
     covered bridges;
       (3) foster educational programs relating to the history, 
     construction techniques, and contribution to society of 
     historic covered bridges;
       (4) sponsor or conduct research on the history of covered 
     bridges; and
       (5) sponsor or conduct research, and study techniques, on 
     protecting covered bridges from rot, fire, natural disasters, 
     or weight-related damage.
       (c) Direct Federal Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary shall make a grant to a State 
     that submits an application to the Secretary that 
     demonstrates a need for assistance in carrying out 1 or more 
     historic covered bridge projects described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Types of project.--A grant under paragraph (1) may be 
     made for a project--
       (A) to rehabilitate or repair a historic covered bridge;
       (B) to preserve a historic covered bridge, including 
     through--
       (i) installation of a fire protection system, including a 
     fireproofing or fire detection system and sprinklers;
       (ii) installation of a system to prevent vandalism and 
     arson; or
       (iii) relocation of a bridge to a preservation site; and
       (C) to conduct a field test on a historic covered bridge or 
     evaluate a component of a historic covered bridge, including 
     through destructive testing of the component.
       (3) Authenticity.--A grant under paragraph (1) may be made 
     for a project only if--
       (A) to the maximum extent practicable, the project--
       (i) is carried out in the most historically appropriate 
     manner, and
       (ii) preserves the existing structure of the historic 
     covered bridge; and
       (B) the project provides for the replacement of wooden 
     components with wooden components, unless the use of wood is 
     impracticable for safety reasons.
       (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1999 through 2003, to remain available until expended.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, this amendment gives the States the 
tools necessary to preserve our Nation's historic covered bridges. 
These picturesque relics of past industrial genius continue to serve 
many important functions. However, covered bridges are quickly 
disappearing due to arson, floods, decay and simple neglect. Without 
proper and consistent maintenance, these engineering masterpieces will 
slowly fade into history.
  Today I am proposing that the Federal Government assist towns and 
counties across the Nation in restoring and protecting historic covered 
bridges. Together with States, local communities and committed 
preservationists, we can curb the decay of these treasures and protect 
them for generations to come.
  This country once boasted 12,000 covered bridges. Today, less than 
800 remain. Not too long ago transportation officials started tearing 
down these old landmarks by the bunches in favor of more modern and 
accessible bridges. Arsonists have been a highly visible threat. 
Weather has taken its toll. Many old bridges have been carried off by 
floods or collapsed under the weight of heavy snows.
  Of course, weather would not be so destructive if it were not for the 
most dangerous and imminent risk--neglect. Without proper and 
consistent maintenance, covered bridges slowly decay and eventually 
fall to harsh weather or flooding.
  Behind me are two pictures of covered bridges in Vermont. Many of our 
Nation's historic wooden bridges are in this shape. Others are 
suffering, but some are being preserved as this picture shows. With 
proper care and maintenance, covered bridges can be preserved, as this 
one is, so they might be enjoyed throughout the years.
  A majority of these wooden structures still perform their original 
duties but still carry more traffic and weight than their designers 
anticipated, often leading to weight-related collapse.
  The cost to properly rehabilitate a working covered bridge comes 
close to $500,000. Some bridges are far more expensive. Many of these 
bridges are on town roads, off the National Highway System, and tend 
not to be a priority. But these bridges must not be lost.
  This amendment will direct the Secretary of Transportation to fund 
the efforts to inventory, repair and maintain

[[Page S1766]]

our Nation's covered bridges. Moneys provided by the measure give the 
States the ability to fully restore their covered bridges ensuring the 
safety of travelers without compromising the bridges' historical 
integrity.
  This amendment calls for proper research, construction and 
maintenance techniques. The proposal will provide funds for fire, arson 
and vandalism prevention. These grants to States will prove vital to 
ensuring the covered bridges survive into the next century, into the 
next millennium.
  These covered bridges stand as a reminder of our heritage and 
contribute immensely to making our Nation the beautiful place it is 
today. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I commend the authors of this legislation, Senators Chafee, Warner, 
and Baucus, for completing action on this measure.
   Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my friend 
and colleague Senator Jeffords, to help spotlight and preserve an 
important part of America's and Iowa's heritage--covered bridges. This 
amendment will help our states to do the rehabilitation and 
preservation work necessary to maintain these icons of the open road. I 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  There is a romance concerning our Nation's covered bridges. They 
bring forth pictures of a different time in American history. It was a 
time when life moved more slowly, both on and off the road. It was time 
when travelers could take the time to enjoy the scenery as they 
unhurriedly passed by. Now it seems that most of us are in a hurry to 
get to our next destination, with little or no time to observe and 
enjoy the passing scene.
  Today, I am happy to say, these bridges are drawing tourists. In Iowa 
this is in no small part due to a very popular book which was made into 
a movie. ``The Bridges of Madison County'' has greatly helped to focus 
attention on covered bridges. For Iowa, the book and movie have helped 
to increase our tourism industry. For our Nation, the book and movie 
have helped to bring into full view of the public a unique part of our 
transportation and cultural heritage. This attention for the covered 
bridges is well deserved.
  Maintenace and protection of these bridges is expensive. It is well 
that we take steps at the federal level to help the states preserve and 
protect these structures of beauty and grace. They are truly a national 
enhancement, a vital part of our history, and deserving of our special 
attention.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak in 
support of the Jeffords-Specter amendment, which establishes a federal 
grant program to preserve our Nation's historic wood-covered bridges 
for future generations.
  There are 526 covered bridges nationwide, and almost 90 percent are 
in a critical state of disrepair. Pennsylvania enjoys the most covered 
bridges of any state, with 167. Unfortunately, the vast majority are 
either closed, or have weight limitations placed upon them to forestall 
further deterioration. Aside from the aesthetic reasons for repairing 
these bridges, there are safety implications as well for those who 
travel across them each day.
  The wood-covered bridges which dot the landscape across rural America 
serve as more than simply a tourist attraction. They are in essence a 
bridge to our past which allows us to better understand how previous 
generations worked to expand this Nation's transportation 
infrastructure and link communities together. It would indeed be a 
tragedy to allow them to simply waste away.
  It is estimated that approximately $344 million will be needed to 
bring all of our Nation's covered bridges up to standard. Our amendment 
would authorize $25 million each year over a period of seven years to 
restore and maintain these bridges, which are over 50 years of age. 
This would provide states with a much-needed dedicated source of 
funding to be used strictly for covered bridge preservation.
  As a member of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I will work with my colleagues to ensure a steady funding stream once 
this program is authorized by passage of this amendment.
  If we do not act now, these national treasures will be lost forever. 
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and thank Senator Jeffords 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Vermont for 
his amendment. I think he is dealing with a very, very important 
subject. Having traveled a good deal in Vermont, I am familiar with 
these lovely covered bridges, but his amendment does not restrict the 
protection for the covered bridges to only his State. I think some 16 
different States are involved with this amendment, and others beyond 
that, perhaps.
  As the pictures show, these are magnificent structures and really 
very unique engineering feats. We want to do everything we can to 
preserve them, and this is a modest step in that direction. I think it 
is a very worthwhile amendment to take.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, Senator Baucus, who is the floor manager 
from our side, was called away from the floor, and I am attempting to 
assist his staff and to help our distinguished chairman. I am advised 
this side has no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1716), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________