[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1816-S1817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. WARNER. I have been informed by the majority leader's office that 
there is a necessity to delay the vote by, say, 15 minutes. Therefore, 
I ask now that the hour of 10:45 be established as the time at which 
the bill will be brought up, and then the pending UC will take effect 
at that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1726

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will, therefore, continue in morning 
business. I would like at this time to address the McCain amendment, 
which will be brought up shortly after the hour of 10:45, when the 
Senate goes to the bill. It is my intention to be a supporter. I ask 
unanimous consent I may be made a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona has 
established himself many times in terms of his desire to have fiscal 
responsibility on a series of legislative proposals as they come before 
this body.
  I wish to commend him. This one I feel very strongly should receive 
the support of all 100 Members of the Senate. I say that because the 
highway bill has been given careful consideration by the Senate for 
almost 2 weeks. Hopefully, we can vote final passage in a matter of 
hours. Of course, we understand it will then go to conference.

[[Page S1817]]

  I did a little research about demonstration projects. That is the 
subject of the McCain amendment. The first paragraph of the McCain 
amendment says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a demonstration 
     project shall be subject to any limitation on obligations 
     established by law that applies to the Federal-aid highways 
     and highway safety construction programs.

  In essence, if a State wants a demonstration project and a Member of 
either body gets that on to the bill, then it counts toward their 
quota. I think it is very sensible because, historically, here is what 
has happened.
  The surface transportation bill in 1987 was, Mr. President, the first 
time demonstration projects were authorized on that bill, approximately 
$1 billion to $2 billion. During ISTEA 1991, I was a member not only of 
the committee but a conferee. I was in about the second or third row, 
and I watched what took place. The demonstration projects flowed in the 
course of the bill being developed in the House and then in the 
conference. The result: The grand total was $6 billion of demonstration 
projects.
  When the Environment and Public Works Committee started work on this 
legislation, it was in my subcommittee which I chair, and with the 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Baucus, the committee decided that we 
would not put in demonstration projects. That philosophical decision 
has carried through to this moment. In this bill, as amended, to the 
best of my knowledge, there are no demonstration projects, and we have 
achieved our goal so that we will go to conference with zero, with an 
allocation of the money to the several States, hopefully in the range 
of 91 percent return on that dollar paid by citizens of that State or 
visitors at the gas pump. That was a goal I charted in the subcommittee 
work. It had solid support in the subcommittee, we had solid support in 
the full committee, and I am proud to say we have achieved that equity 
in this bill.
  If we begin to put in, in conference, the magnitude of demonstration 
projects approximating what was done in 1991, watch out; that 91 
percent is going to disappear. Therefore, I think it is important that 
we will carry this bill through today without demonstration projects.
  There is another reason. I went back and looked at the 1991 bill. 
About half of those projects under that legislation have never been 
completed to this date, 6 years later, and the reason is that a Member 
of the U.S. Congress, if he or she is successful in getting a 
demonstration project, gets $2 million or $3 million authorized, goes 
out with a press release, gains all the notoriety for bringing home 
something, and then what happens? The State, which has overall 
authority over what is really going to be built in that State, decides, 
one, it is not a priority item for the State and, two, they are not 
going to put up the matching funds to develop the project. As a 
consequence, we now have, of the 1991 bill, half the funds languishing 
when they could have been spent elsewhere, perhaps within that State, 
or for other really high-priority projects. The result has been a large 
percentage of these funds have not been spent because they are not 
priority projects in that State.
  Further, setting aside funds for these projects grossly distorts our 
objective to achieve equity and fairness in the distribution formulas. 
Historically, project funds are not calculated in each State's return 
in their contributions to the highway trust fund.
  The amendment by Senator McCain is an important statement for the 
Senate to take to the conference. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since the vote is now set at 10:45, I ask 
unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________