[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1821-S1859]
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 
return to the 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).
  Pending:

       McCain Amendment No. 1726 (to Amendment No. 1676), to 
     provide that demonstration projects shall be subject to any 
     limitation on obligations established by law that applies in 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs.

                             amendment 1726

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it is time we end the practice of earmarking 
highway projects. This practice continues to disadvantage my state, and 
most others. Commonly referred to as demonstration projects, these 
earmarked dollars literally come off the top of the transportation 
funding available under this legislation.
  The rationale behind apportionment formulas and funding allocations 
is that these transportation funds are distributed according to state's 
needs. Notwithstanding disagreements over whether these distributions 
accurately reflect a state's transportation needs, the practice of 
authorizing demonstration projects undermines the rationale supporting 
the use of these formulas. Moreover, this practice literally deprives 
states of the funding which would otherwise be available for states' 
highway priorities as established by state and local transportation 
planners.
  While I believe this is a wasteful practice, history has shown there 
is little chance of its outright elimination. Beginning in 1982 when 
$362 million was set-aside for 10 such earmarks, the inclusion of such 
earmarks has continued to grow as illustrated in the 1991 
transportation bill, ISTEA, where over $6 billion was provided for 538 
location specific projects.
  While the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee has shown 
great restraint in this area, it is well understood that the House of 
Representatives has been unable to curtail this practice. In fact, the 
House is fully expected to come forward this year with billions of 
dollars in transportation earmarks.
  Accordingly, the amendment offered by Senator McCain does the next 
best thing. It requires that any highway demonstration projects come 
from within a state's total funding and not at the expense of funding 
otherwise available to all other states.
  For all my colleagues who have argued in favor of the formulas 
contained in the bill and the rationale behind them, support of this 
provision remains consistent with that position. And, for those of my 
colleagues who are not as enthusiastic over the distribution of highway 
dollars in the underlying legislation, this provision will ensure that 
your states prospective return on their transportation dollar will not 
be eroded any further.
  I look forward to the overwhelming support of my colleagues on this 
common sense amendment, and I thank Senator McCain for his excellent 
work in crafting this provision.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
McCain amendment to require that demonstration projects be funded from 
each state's allocation and be subject to annual limitation.
  The current system for designating large construction projects 
advantages a few states over the majority. It prioritizes construction 
needs based more on political seniority that it does an impartial 
evaluation of transportation needs. It creates pressure for Members of 
Congress to engage in porkbarrel spending rather than to concentrate on 
prudent national policy. I believe the McCain amendment would help move 
us away from this system because it would not give states or members an 
incentive to seek out demonstration or critical needs projects, as 
securing these projects would not increase the amount of federal funds 
flowing to a state.
  I further support the McCain amendment because it gives states 
greater say in determining what projects have the highest priority for 
their locality. It should be up to cities, counties, and the state 
Departments of Transportation to prioritize what projects need 
immediate attention in their state--not the federal government. Too 
often under the current system, a state has to put aside its own 
priorities because it must use its own limited funds to provide 
matching funds for the large federally designated construction 
projects, or risk losing federal funding. This ``Washington knows 
best'' approach to transportation planning needs to end.
  Finally, I support this amendment because it would end a system that 
disadvantages the infrastructure needs of a majority of states to the 
benefit of a few. In order to maintain a strong, truly national 
infrastructure system, we must give every state the tools and funding 
its needs to maintain its share of the system. Ending a system that 
gives a few states an inordinate amount of construction dollars is one 
step in the right direction toward that goal.
  I applaud the Senator from Arizona for proposing this approach to 
increase fiscal responsibility in transportation spending and to 
empower the communities in which the infrastructure lies. I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1726 offered by Senator McCain. The yeas and nays have been 
offered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 1726) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S1822]]

  Mr. FORD. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1998 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Sarbanes, I send to the desk an amendment to the transit title.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. D'Amato 
     and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 1998 to No. 
     1676.

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

       On page 55, all after line 11, insert the following
       (A) Establishment of Center--(1) Section 5317(b) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall make grants to the University of 
     Alabama Transportation Research Center to establish a 
     university Transportation Center.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, inadvertently the managers of the bill 
omitted important language from the transit title. I am grateful to the 
chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee for bringing that 
to our attention. This amendment has approval of this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment has been cleared, and I urge its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1998) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1999 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study to 
  assess the impact that a utility company's failure to relocate its 
 facilities in a timely manner has on the delivery and cost of Federal-
                    aid highway and bridge projects)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Torricelli, 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. 
     Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 1999 to amendment 
     No. 1676.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 85, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       (d) Evaluation of Procurement Practices and Project 
     Delivery.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     to assess--
       (A) the impact that a utility company's failure to relocate 
     its facilities in a timely manner has on the delivery and 
     cost of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects;
       (B) methods States use to mitigate delays described in 
     subparagraph (A), including the use of the courts to compel 
     utility cooperation;
       (C) the prevalence and use of--
       (i) incentives to utility companies for early completion of 
     utility relocations on Federal-aid transportation project 
     sites; and
       (ii) penalties assessed on utility companies for utility 
     relocation delays on such projects;
       (D) the extent to which States have used available 
     technologies, such as subsurface utility engineering, early 
     in the design of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects so 
     as to eliminate or reduce the need for or delays due to 
     utility relocations; and
       (E)(i) whether individual States compensate transportation 
     contractors for business costs incurred by the contractors 
     when Federal-aid highway and bridge projects under contract 
     to the contractors are delayed by delays caused by utility 
     companies in utility relocations; and
       (ii) methods used by States in making any such 
     compensation.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study, including 
     any recommendations that the Comptroller General determines 
     to be appropriate as a result of the study.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment provides for a GAO study on 
facilitating the relocation of utilities that occur as part of highway 
construction projects.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1999) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. DOMENICI. 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. 2000 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To provide for high risk hazardous material and hazardous 
                      waste transportation safety)

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Torricelli, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2000 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:

       In title III, strike section 3215 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3215. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 51, as amended by section 3214 of 
     this Act, is amended by redesignating section 5128 as section 
     5129 and by inserting after section 5127 the following:

     ``Sec. 5128. High risk hazardous material and hazardous 
       waste; motor carrier safety study

       ``(a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct 
     a study--
       ``(1) to determine the safety benefits and administrative 
     efficiency of implementing a Federal permit program for high 
     risk hazardous material and hazardous waste carriers;
       ``(2) to identify and evaluate alternative regulatory 
     methods and procedures that may improve the safety of high 
     risk hazardous material and hazardous waste carriers and 
     shippers, including evaluating whether an annual safety 
     fitness determination that is linked to permit renewals for 
     hazardous material and hazardous waste carriers is warranted;
       ``(3) to examine the safety benefits of increased 
     monitoring of high risk hazardous material and hazardous 
     waste carriers, and the costs, benefits, and procedures of 
     existing State permit programs;
       ``(4) to make such recommendations as may be appropriate 
     for the improvement of uniformity among existing State permit 
     programs; and
       ``(5) to assess the potential of advanced technologies for 
     improving the assessment of high risk hazardous material and 
     hazardous waste carriers' compliance with motor carrier 
     safety regulations.
       ``(b) Timeframe.--The Secretary shall begin the study 
     required by subsection (a) within 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Intermodal Transportation Safety Act of 1998 
     and complete it within 30 months after the date of enactment 
     of that Act.
       ``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall report the findings of 
     the study required by subsection (a), together with such 
     recommendations as may be appropriate, within 36 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Intermodal Transportation Safety 
     Act of 1998.''.
       (b) Section 5109 Regulations To Reflect Study Findings.--
     Section 5109(h) is amended by striking ``not later than 
     November 16, 1991.'' and inserting ``based upon the findings 
     of the study required by section 5128(a).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     51, as amended by section 3214, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 5128 and inserting the following:

``5128. High risk hazardous material and hazardous waste; motor carrier 
              safety study.
``5129. Authorization of appropriations.''.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is in the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Committee. It is cleared by the committee. It will 
authorize a study to investigate the best methods of improving safety 
procedures that govern the transportation of hazardous materials, 
including linking the renewal of a hauler's Federal permit to an annual 
safety review.
  As I said, the Commerce Committee has cleared this. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is agreeable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2000) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. 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.

[[Page S1823]]

  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. 2001 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To make minor and technical corrections in subtitle F of 
       title III (relating to sport fishing and boating safety))

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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 Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2001 to amendment No. 1676.
  The amendment is follows:

       On page 154, line 6, strike ``1998;'' and insert ``1999;''.
       On page 154, line 7, strike ``1999;'' and insert ``2000;''.
       On page 154, line 8, strike ``2000;'' and insert ``2001;''.
       On page 154, line 9, strike ``2001;'' and insert ``2002; 
     and''.
       On page 154, line 10, strike ``2002;'' and insert 
     ``2003;''.
       On page 154, strike line 11.
       On page 158, strike lines 1 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Fiscal year 1998.--In fiscal year 1998, an amount 
     equal to $20,000,000 of the balance remaining after the 
     distribution under subsection (a) shall be transferred to the 
     Secretary of Transportation and shall be expended for State 
     recreational boating safety programs under section 
     13106(a)(1) of title 46, United States Code.
       On page 162, line 7, strike ``(1)(c)'' and insert 
     ``(2)(B)''.
       On page 162, line 11, strike ``(1)(c)'' and insert 
     ``(2)(B)''.
       On page 163, strike lines 24 and 25.
       On page 164, line 24, strike ``4(b)'' and insert 
     ``4(b)(2)''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment makes a series of technical 
date changes in the Wallop-Breaux provisions of the Commerce Committee 
title. These are entirely technical modifications. They have the 
approval of this side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, these are technical corrections that are 
necessary because of an earlier action that we took. It is clearly 
minor and technical and should be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The amendment (No. 2001) 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.
  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. 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. 2002 to Amendment No. 1676

     (Purpose: To provide for a school transportation safety study)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeWine, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), for Mr. DeWine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2002 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:

       At the appropriate place in subtitle D of title III, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 34____. SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall offer to enter 
     into an agreement with the Transportation Research Board of 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, a study of the safety issues 
     attendant to the transportation of school children to and 
     from school and school-related activities by various 
     transportation modes.
       (b) Terms of Agreement.--The agreement under subsection (a) 
     shall provide that--
       (1) the Transportation Research Board, in conducting the 
     study, shall consider--
       (A) in consultation with the National Transportation Safety 
     Board, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and other 
     relevant entities, available crash injury data;
       (B) vehicle design and driver training requirements, 
     routing, and operational factors that affect safety; and
       (C) other factors that the Secretary considers to be 
     appropriate;
       (2) if the data referred to in paragraph (1)(A) is 
     unavailable or insufficient, the Transportation Research 
     Board shall recommend a new data collection regimen and 
     implementation guidelines; and
       (3) a panel shall conduct the study and shall include--
       (A) representatives of--
       (i) highway safety organizations;
       (ii) school transportation; and
       (iii) mass transportation operators;
       (B) academic and policy analysts; and
       (C) other interested parties.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the Secretary 
     enters into an agreement under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report that contains the results of the 
     study.
       (d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Department of Transportation to carry out this 
     section--
       (1) $200,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       (2) $200,000 for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, approximately 25 million students are 
transported to and from school and school-related activities on buses. 
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 
established a series of federal motor vehicle safety standards to 
assist those responsible for transporting our school children on school 
buses.
  These features include: clearly distinguishable vehicles with built-
in passenger restraint systems; flashing red lights that are activated 
as students enter and leave the school bus; specially trained drivers; 
and specially designed routes and schedules to minimize the distance 
that students need to walk to the bus stop.
  Unfortunately, despite all of these safety features on school buses, 
more student fatalities and serious injuries occur during the loading 
and unloading process than occur while students are being transported.
  As my colleagues know, there are mandates relating to school 
facilities, teacher salaries, computers, and books. However, in most 
states, there is no mandate that school districts must provide pupils 
with transportation to and from school. Because of this, many school 
systems are being forced to seek alternative, cost-effective means of 
providing transportation services for students, and a growing number of 
schools are turning to public transit. In 1994 alone, transit buses 
provided more than 800 million student-related passenger trips and 
approximately 2 million students rode transit buses to school.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that sending children to school on 
transit buses is necessarily a bad thing. The fact is that I don't know 
what this trend means in terms of a child's safety. I do know, however, 
that students are injured or killed most often when entering or exiting 
school buses--buses with special safety features designed to prevent 
such tragedies. Moreover, I know that the US Department of 
Transportation has conflicting requirements with respect to school 
transportation. On the one hand, NHTSA requires school buses to meet 
stringent safety standards and has issued guidelines for covering the 
operational aspects of pupil transportation safety. On the other hand, 
the Federal Transit Administration provides funding for transit 
companies that provide transportation to and from school for students 
each day on vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus safety 
standards.
  As more and more schools are forced to decide on cost-saving ways to 
transport children, schools are forced to make these decisions in a 
vacuum. We do not know how safe our children are when they board and 
ride the transit bus to school. After all, we need to know that 
information when we decide ways for children to get to and from school 
safely. I've been greatly involved in efforts to improve the safety of 
school buses--and that effort began with seeking information. I'm 
proposing that we seek similar information on public transit buses.
  This amendment, would authorize $400,000 for the Secretary of 
Transportation to study safety issues related to the transportation of 
school children by various different modes of transportation. I have 
worked on this amendment with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
and it meets with

[[Page S1824]]

his approval. I appreciate the assistance of the Senator from Arizona 
and his staff in this effort.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment has been 
cleared on both sides and I move for its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment provides for a study of 
transportation of school children on transit buses. The Secretary of 
Transportation will study safety issues relating to the transportation 
of school children by various and different modes of transportation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment not in our committee 
jurisdiction. It is a Commerce Committee amendment. It has been cleared 
by that committee. We, therefore, feel it should be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Ohio.
  The amendment (No. 2002) 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.


                Amendment No. 1986 to Amendment No. 1676

       (Purpose: To designate a commercial zone within which the 
 transportation of certain property in commerce is exempt from certain 
       provisions of Chapter 135 of title 49, United States Code)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an 
amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), for Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1986 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DESIGNATION OF NEW MEXICO COMMERCIAL ZONE.

       (a) Commercial Zone Defined.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 13902(c)(4)(A), in this 
     section, for the transportation of property only, the term 
     ``commercial zone'' means a zone containing lands adjacent 
     to, and commercially a part of, 1 or more municipalities with 
     respect to which the exception described in section 
     13506(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, applies.
       (b) Designation of Zone.--
       (1) In general.--The area described in paragraph (2) is 
     designated as a commercial zone, to be known as the ``New 
     Mexico Commercial Zone.''
       (2) Description of Area.--The area described in this 
     paragraph is the area that is comprised of Dona Ana County 
     and Luna County in New Mexico.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect any action commenced or pending before the Secretary 
     of Transportation or Surface Transportation Board before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
manager of the bill for accepting my amendment to establish a much-
needed commercial zone in my home state to facilitate trade and 
transportation of raw materials and goods across our border with 
Mexico. I agree with him that we need to take a comprehensive approach 
to opening the entire border with Mexico.
  In the past, commercial zones were established by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in numerous states to improve local border trade 
activities, as well as to control movement and uphold American safety 
requirements for foreign vehicles operating within the United States.
  Within these zones, commercial vehicles of Canadian and Mexican 
registry are authorized to deliver products from their country of 
origin to United States' distribution points or warehouses without 
extended delays at the border or the need for unloading the cargo for 
reloading and shipment by American vehicles. These same vehicles also 
are authorized to pick up products in the United States for export to 
their respective countries.
  Since the passage of NAFTA, New Mexico has witnessed its exports to 
Mexico increase by over 1,000 percent. Unfortunately, New Mexico still 
lags behind 35 other states in the amount of exports it sends to 
Mexico, and it has become increasingly clear that establishing a 
commercial zone is a necessary step in improving New Mexico's economic 
relationship with our neighbor to the south.
  The need for a commercial zone in New Mexico is most critical to the 
continued viability of several food processing plants which employ 
thousands of New Mexicans in the southern part of the state. Later this 
year, Mexican farmers will harvest their chili crops and sell them to 
the plants in New Mexico for processing. Right now, without a 
designated commercial zone, Mexican farmers must transport the chili 
crop to the border, unload the cargo at an off-loading site, and reload 
it onto an American carrier to travel the remaining 30 miles to the 
processing plant. Clearly, without a commercial zone, there is large 
economic disincentive for Mexican farmers to do business with New 
Mexico food processors.
  This amendment should be non-controversial. It allows New Mexico to 
compete for NAFTA-related business on the same level playing field as 
our neighboring border states--California, Arizona and Texas--all of 
which already have established commercial zones.
  This amendment is supported by New Mexico's Governor Gary Johnson, 
the State Economic Development Department, the New Mexico Border 
Authority, the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the New Mexico food 
processing industry and the New Mexico Motor Carriers Association and 
the cities Las Cruces and Deming. Again, I thank the manager of the 
bill and the Ranking Minority Member for accepting this amendment and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon adopt an amendment 
offered by Senator Domenici to establish a new commercial zone in New 
Mexico. As a representative from a neighboring border state, I 
understand the importance of this commercial zone to New Mexico. 
However, I also know that this new zone is only a temporary solution to 
a much bigger issue, that is, the implementation of the NAFTA cross-
border trucking provisions.
  I want my colleagues to recognize the critical importance of 
fulfilling our obligations under NAFTA. The NAFTA agreement authorized 
access for U.S. trucking companies to Mexico's northern provinces, with 
reciprocal rights for Mexican trucks to enter the four Southwest border 
states. Under the NAFTA agreement, the U.S.-Mexico border was to open 
December 18, 1995. Two years later, we have heard little from the 
Administration on its efforts to meet our nation's obligations.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree implementation of the cross-trucking border 
provisions of NAFTA has been delayed far too long. Our states were 
prepared to go forward in 1995. Had that occurred, my amendment today 
would not be necessary.
  The state of New Mexico has been seeking to establish a new 
commercial zone since 1992, prior to passage of NAFTA. In 1995, the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, which had jurisdiction over commercial 
zones, essentially announced the State's effort was moot since the 
border was to open shortly. Yet here we are, more than two years later, 
and nothing has changed. New Mexico's economy has been held stagnant 
because not only did the border not open, but we are precluded from any 
trade benefits associated with a commercial zone--benefits enjoyed by 
the other border states.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Department of Transportation did not oppose the 
establishment of the new commercial zone. I know the Senator from New 
Mexico shares my concerns that we do nothing to impede the on-going 
NAFTA harmonization negotiations. And, when the NAFTA provisions are 
implemented, the zones in our border states will essentially be 
irrelevant. In the meantime, I will continue to do all I can to 
encourage the President to move forward on implementation of this 
important agreement. The continued delay robs the entire region of the 
full economic benefits that NAFTA promises.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the Commerce 
Committee's amendment. It is under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
Committee, and has been approved by the chairman and ranking member of 
that committee. It establishes a commercial zone designation for two 
counties in New Mexico.

[[Page S1825]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is a good amendment. I urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  The amendment (No. 1986) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. 2003 and 2004, En Bloc to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and then 
a further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, both amendments will be 
considered en bloc. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 2003 and 2004 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.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2003

(Purpose: To provide for the continuation of the Disadvantaged Business 
 Enterprise program in the mass transportation programs of the Federal 
                              government)

       On page 77, line 20, strike ``and II'' and insert ``, II, 
     and V''.
                                                                    ____



                AMENDMENT NO. 2004 To AMENDMENT NO. 1969

  (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 review of the disadvantaged business 
           enterprises program and discrimination in general)

       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, II, and V 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, 
     II, and V 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, II, and V 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, II, and V 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, II, and V 
     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, II, and V 
     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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if I can briefly explain. These amendments 
deal with the application of the DBE Program to the transit title. 
Inadvertently, these provisions were left out when the original transit 
title was adopted. These amendments provide for the DBE portion of the 
transit title, and the second provision deals with the McConnell 
modifications to that. The McConnell modifications were the ones we 
adopted to the DBE in the highway program yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment here will extend current law 
so there will be no change in current law. The DBE Program now does 
apply to the mass transit title of the bill; that is, the mass transit 
portion of the law. The point of this amendment is to continue that 
program so it also applies to the mass transit title in the bill once 
the bill is finally passed.
  Mr. CHAFEE. With one addition, the application of the McConnell 
amendment to that title.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments.
  (The amendments Nos. 2003 and 2004 to amendment No. 1676, en bloc, 
were agreed to.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.
  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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to make some comments about the 
bill. I then want to talk about a remaining problem that I hope we can 
work out.
  Mr. President, today we are going to pass the highway bill. This is 
really the result, for some of us, of a 2-year effort. It is the 
culmination of 2 years of hard work in trying to achieve two things. 
No. 1 is trying to force the Federal Government to live up to the 
commitments that it makes to Americans when they go to the filling 
station and fill up their car with gas, and pay a third of the cost of 
a gallon of gasoline in gasoline taxes. They are told right on the tank 
that every penny they pay in gasoline taxes goes to build roads, and 
yet last year almost 30 cents out of every $1 of gasoline taxes went to 
fund everything except roads.
  We have had a 2-year effort to change that, and the passage of this 
bill today

[[Page S1826]]

will guarantee that every penny we collect in gasoline taxes will be 
spent for the purpose for which that tax is collected, and that is to 
build roads. That is a major victory for the driving public. It is a 
major victory for taxpayers. It is a major victory for those who depend 
on good roads and highways and interstates to earn a living, to get 
back and forth to work, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor in terms 
of using their automobiles for pleasure travel. I think we can all 
rejoice in that victory.
  I would like to also note that it is a bipartisan victory. The 
success we celebrate today is the first real bipartisan effort of this 
Congress. I hope it is an omen of things to come. I thank Senator 
Baucus and Senator Warner for their leadership on this bill, and 
Senator Chafee and Senator Domenici for working to reach a consensus 
which, quite frankly, in many ways is better than the position that 
either party started with. I think those who wonder how the legislative 
process actually works could be satisfied in looking at how we have 
reached a consensus on this bill.
  I would also like to say I have appreciated having the opportunity to 
work with the sage of the U.S. Senate. I have been greatly honored to 
have the opportunity to work as a partner with Senator Byrd in putting 
together an effort that today is succeeding in guaranteeing that the 
gasoline tax is spent for the purpose of building roads. I thank 
Senator Byrd for his leadership and say it has been a great pleasure to 
work with him and to watch him work. I think this is a very important 
bill, and I am pleased about it.
  The second thing that we have done, principally as a result of 
Senator Warner's leadership, is we have moved to a greater position of 
equity with regard to donor States. This is a very difficult issue for 
many Members of the Senate to understand, and, frankly, on occasion it 
is very difficult for me to understand. But the plain truth is we have 
a National Highway System. In building a National Highway System, there 
are always phases where the construction projects in some States are 
bigger, in terms of cost, than the amount of money that they are paying 
into the highway trust fund. If you did not have a National Highway 
System, what would happen, especially in the western part of the 
country, is you would build big interstate highways that would get to 
Western States with very low population bases, States where people who 
live in the State pay relatively little gasoline tax, and you would end 
up with the interstate ending at their State border. So we can never 
expect in any one year for there to be a perfect fit between the amount 
of money a State is paying in and how much they are getting in Federal 
highway construction funds in that year.
  But the disparity had gotten so large that it had become a source of 
friction in the Senate. It had become a source of Members feeling that 
their States were being cheated, not just in an interim period but 
permanently. I thank Senator Warner for working to guarantee in this 
bill that no State will ever again get less than 91 cents out of every 
dollar that it sends to Washington in gasoline taxes, no matter how we 
might be spending money in constructing a National Highway System. That 
is an absolute minimum set by this bill.
  We have not reached this point easily. It has taken a tremendous 
amount of work. Senator Warner has been a leader in that effort. And 
this was a very big deal for many States, 29 States to be specific, and 
my State in particular. As a result of spending the gasoline tax for 
the purpose that it is collected and guaranteeing that no State will 
get back less than 91 cents out of every $1 that it sends to Washington 
in gasoline taxes in the future, the allocation for my State, which is 
typical of the 29 donor States, has risen from $7 billion in the last 
highway bill to $10.9 billion in this bill.
  What that will mean is that for the 3l million miles--the 31,000 
miles--Texans think big--the 31,000 miles of substandard highways that 
we have in Texas, we will now have the resources to allow us to move 
ahead and catch up with some of the modernization and maintenance that 
we need, the tens of thousands of bridges that are substandard, the 
north-south Interstate Highway System that we need to build--all of 
those things will be made possible, or at least substantial progress 
toward achieving them will be made possible, by this bill.
  There is one remaining issue outstanding in the bill, and it has to 
do with NAFTA highways and international trade corridors.
  I remind my colleagues that when we passed the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, part of the deal was an agreement by the Federal 
Government to take into account the infrastructure needs with regard to 
transportation, the fact that opening up free trade north-south, 
involving Canada, the United States and Mexico, would create a 
tremendous increase in the demand for north-south traffic.
  The result of NAFTA has been that I-35 in my State, currently, and 
certainly, the most important international trade corridor in the 
country, the only interstate that runs north-south throughout the 
length of the whole country through the industrial heartland of the 
Americas, is the most congested interstate highway in America.
  We know that over the next 7 years, the level of truck traffic 
related to Canadian, United States, and Mexican trade on that road will 
double over a 7-year period and, obviously, we need to build a north-
south interstate highway system in America. If you look at a map of the 
country and you highlight interstate highways, while there are few 
exceptions, basically we have an east-west interstate highway system in 
America.
  One of the things that the demands of NAFTA trade will produce is a 
requirement to build a north-south interstate highway system to go with 
the east-west highway system that we currently have.
  We have in the bill $450 million provided for the purpose of 
beginning to allow us to focus on NAFTA trade and international trade 
corridors. That money is vitally important for doing the engineering 
work and beginning construction on major projects related to north-
south trade. I-35 is a big project in my State, as is I-69 and the 
potential for other major highways or interstate highways through El 
Paso and in west Texas.
  Here is the remaining problem in the bill, so far as I am concerned. 
Under the old bill, there was discussion of a NAFTA provision. Money 
was mentioned as potentially being provided, but as often happens in 
these bills, there was no money provided, but we had a list of criteria 
that were set out to direct the Secretary as to how money should be 
provided if money ever were provided.
  In the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, one of our provisions was 
actually providing money for NAFTA, $450 million. We subsequently have 
tried to go back and set out objective criteria to guarantee that every 
State that has international trade flowing from NAFTA--basically north-
south trade--could be a beneficiary. We have tried to set out a 
rational list of items that should be looked at in determining where 
the highest and best use of this money would be, guaranteeing that not 
just border States would benefit, but also States in the interior of 
the country that would find themselves as part of the roadway for a 
major north-south international trade corridor.
  I had thought last night that we had reached a consensus. I spent 
much of yesterday talking to every Member of Congress who had a concern 
about this area. We have come up with a consensus amendment now that 
will set out objective criteria for international trade, for growth in 
commercial traffic since the passage of NAFTA. We have gotten input 
from Democrats and Republicans, and yet this amendment continues to be 
delayed.
  I just want to put my colleagues on notice that one of the things I 
have discovered around here is that if you wait until the end of the 
bill to get your item fixed, you often end up not having it fixed. I 
assure my colleagues, having done all this work on this provision, I 
want to be sure we have a rational set of criteria for allocating the 
money. When there was no money, nobody cared what these criteria were. 
But, obviously, now that funds are provided, I want to ensure that 
States that are impacted by NAFTA trade, whether they be Michigan or 
Arizona or New Mexico or Texas or California or Washington

[[Page S1827]]

or Oregon and all the States in between, have a fair chance of 
competing for these funds and that these funds, provided specifically 
for this purpose, do not turn into a grab bag where people simply make 
up provisions that would qualify a particular project in their State, 
even though it might have absolutely nothing to do with international 
trade and might have absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA.
  I believe we have a consensus amendment. It is my understanding that 
someone somewhere still has objections. I will say, at some point, 
regrettably, I am going to have to object to amendments coming up until 
we have made a decision about this amendment. I do not want it to be 
the last amendment of the day. As a result, I simply urge anyone who 
has a concern about this--and we have had the involvement of roughly a 
half dozen Republicans and Democrats. Everyone has signed off on the 
amendment who has been involved in any way in it. If someone has an 
objection, I urge them to come to the floor or at least send a staff 
person to the floor so we can try to work this out.
  Barring the ability to do that, we are getting ready to stop the 
train from moving, because this was an issue which I thought was agreed 
to last night, but I find it is not agreed to this morning. I am eager 
to get on with it and finish this last piece, which represents for me 
the last piece in getting the puzzle together.
  I thank the Chair for recognition and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Texas. He 
was very modest in his remarks recounting the history of how we got 
from the very beginning to where we are today.
  Yes, he did refer to the sage in the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd. I, 
like the Senator from Texas, am privileged to be part of that team. I 
had an opportunity to work many times with Senator Byrd, and there is 
not one of us in the Senate of the United States who cannot learn and 
benefit from his wisdom.
  Indeed, the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Texas 
took on a battle that the Senator from Montana and I started and lost 
by one vote. The rest is history.
  As I talk to so many Senators--and will continue to do so for the 
next hour about this bill--I think there is a feeling in the Senate 
that we have really done a very significant piece of legislation and we 
have corrected the inequities of the past.
  All of us know that fighting for our individual States is that 
responsibility which is foremost, but there comes a time when we have 
to reconcile our differences and recognize that each of the 50 States 
has its own particular problems as they relate to transportation, 
whether it is in the far reaches of Alaska, the northern tier, or down 
on the border where the distinguished Senator from Texas works so hard 
on behalf of his constituents.
  We are there and we have tried and will continue to try through 
conference to keep that 91 percent as the target goal for all States. 
The donor States have now been recognized through the efforts of many. 
I was privileged to be a part of it. They have at long last pulled 
alongside so that they are getting an equitable and fair distribution 
with the other States. I thank the Senator from Texas. He is a bulldog 
to work with. I tell you, I would rather be on his side than opposing 
him.
  This is the last amendment that we are working on. I have a few small 
items which I will move to momentarily. Then, in conjunction with the 
distinguished floor manager on the other side, I will ask unanimous 
consent that there be no further amendments and we begin to vote on 
final passage about the hour of 2:15. That is just preliminary for 
Senators who might have an interest so they can attend to those 
interests between now and the hour of 2:15.
  I see my good friend and colleague in so many joint ventures--a 
travel partner recently to the gulf States and Russia--on the floor. 
Therefore, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. 
Indeed, we have worked long and hard on a number of issues, including 
the donor State issue. The amendment that I am going to call up in a 
minute is not a donor State amendment. We have had many of those, some 
of which we have had some success on, some of which we have not.
  Since the question of donor States has been raised, let me say for 
those 15 to 20 of our States that contribute historically much more 
than we get back in terms of Federal gas tax dollars, the bill that is 
before us now does take some small steps on a long road to fairness for 
those donor States.
  We hope that we can improve this bill further in conference from 
where it is now. There have been some small steps taken through the 
efforts of many. We are grateful for all of those efforts.


                Amendment No. 1375 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To provide for greater local input in transportation planning 
                            and programming)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1375.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1375 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 125, lines 5 and 6, strike ``not less than 15 
     percent'' and insert ``not less than 25 percent, nor more 
     than 35 percent,''.
       On page 156, strike lines 21 through 23 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the first sentence of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``80'' and inserting ``82''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``tobe'' and inserting ``to be''; and
       (II) by adding at the end the following: ``A project under 
     this subparagraph shall be undertaken on a road that is 
     classified as below a principal arterial.''; and

       On page 274, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Nonmetropolitan areas.--

       ``(I) In general.--With respect to each nonmetropolitan 
     area in the State, the program shall be developed jointly by 
     the State, elected officials of affected local governments, 
     and elected officials of subdivisions of affected local 
     governments that have jurisdiction over transportation 
     planning, through a process developed by the State that 
     ensures participation by the elected officials.
       ``(II) Review.--Not less than once every 2 years, the 
     Secretary shall review the planning process through which the 
     program was developed under subclause (I).
       ``(III) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the planning 
     process if the Secretary finds that the planning process is 
     consistent with this section and section 134.

       On page 286, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 1605. STUDY OF PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS 
                   IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     effectiveness of the participation of local elected officials 
     in transportation planning and programming.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives a report describing the results of 
     the study required under subsection (a).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will be modified in a 
moment. We have worked with the floor managers and their staffs to 
modify this amendment so it will be acceptable. What this does is 
improve the bill's focus on the transportation needs of small 
metropolitan and rural areas by involving them in a greater way in the 
planning process.
  It is important that a State transportation improvement program be 
developed with the cooperation of our nonmetropolitan planning 
organizations, as well as the metropolitan planning organizations.
  The bill, unless we adopt this modified amendment, will simply 
continue the ISTEA I structure, which only requires that 
nonmetropolitan area planning organizations be consulted in the 
planning process. We raise that one level to require that there be 
cooperation with those smaller units of government. That has a 
significance to our Department of Transportation and to the States and 
greater significance to the smaller units of government and their 
planning organizations so that they will be involved in a greater way 
in the planning process.

[[Page S1828]]

                    Amendment No. 1375, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in order to accomplish what I just stated, 
with the support, I understand, now of the managers, I send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 274, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Nonmetropolitan areas.--
       ``(I) In general.--With respect to each nonmetropolitan 
     area in the State, the program shall be developed in 
     cooperation with the State, elected officials of affected 
     local governments, and elected officials of subdivisions of 
     affected local governments that have jurisdiction over 
     transportation planning, through a process developed by the 
     State that ensures participation by the elected officials.
       ``(II) Review.--Not less than once every 2 years, the 
     Secretary shall review the planning process through which the 
     program was developed under subclause (I)
       ``(III) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the planning 
     process if the Secretary finds that the planning process is 
     consistent with this section and section 134.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has been carefully 
considered on this side. For purposes of proceeding, we are going to 
adopt it. However, I have to say that we will have to readdress the 
amendment in the conference--I think my distinguished colleague 
understands that--because it affects the plan process and relationship 
between the States and local governments.

  From the very inception of this legislation, in the subcommittee of 
which I am privileged to be the chairman, we have been very careful to 
maintain the balance that was developed in ISTEA I. That has worked, we 
believe, quite well over this period of 6 years. We will make certain 
in the conference structure to maintain this balance, and we will look 
at the amendment in that context.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. In fact, I look forward to 
the conferees looking at this balance. Right now, the metropolitan 
areas of our country have planning organizations, and the States are 
required to coordinate the plan with those metropolitan areas. But when 
it comes to the smaller areas, planning units, there is no such 
requirement. There is a ``consultation'' requirement, which is two 
notches below coordination.
  What we are simply doing here is having a little fairer balance with 
the smaller units. By the way, this concept has been approved by the 
National League of Cities. What we simply do here is say that the 
States will cooperate with these nonmetropolitan planning organizations 
so that we get a little greater input. But I would welcome, as a matter 
of fact, the conferees looking very closely at this concept. And I 
understand what the Senator said. It is with that understanding that we 
welcome the manager's support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge that the Senator, between now and 
the conference period, allow the various representatives of AASHTO to 
discuss it. I have found through many years of working on legislation 
for our highways, AASHTO is an organization that has a lot of 
credibility and lot of knowledge. It is composed of the various highway 
officials of our 50 States. They have given effective and balanced and 
credible advice to the Senate on many, many occasions. For the moment, 
they express some discomfort with this. And we want to make sure that 
the Senator has that opportunity.
  Is the Senator ready to adopt the amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Could we get this passed? If it is not----
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


         Amendment No. 2005 to Amendment No. 1375, as modified

   (Purpose: To modify the factors that the Secretary is required to 
consider in selecting States, metropolitan planning organizations, and 
    projects to receive grants under the program to provide Federal 
  assistance for trade corridors and border infrastructure safety and 
                           congestion relief)

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree 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 Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself, Mrs. 
     Hutchison and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2005 to amendment No. 1375, as modified.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, go ahead and read the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would just like to make an inquiry of my friend from 
Texas as to whether or not he is offering a second-degree amendment to 
my pending amendment? Is that what the Senator is doing?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes. It does not change the underlying amendment. It 
simply adds my amendment to it.
  Mr. LEVIN. It simply adds it on to it.
  May I ask one other question to my friend from Texas. Does his 
amendment now have the support of the managers?
  Mr. GRAMM. As far as I know, it has been signed off on by everybody.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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:
       (2) Selection of states, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, and projects to receive grants.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in selecting 
     States, metropolitan planning organizations, and projects to 
     receive grants under subsection 1116(d), the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       (A) the extent to which the annual volume of commercial 
     vehicle traffic at the border stations or ports of entry of 
     each State--
       (i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
     103-182); and
       (ii) is projected to increase in the future;
       (B) the extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in each 
     State--
       (i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
     103-182); and
       (ii) is projected to increase in the future;
       (C) the extent of border transportation improvements 
     carried out by each State since the date of enactment of that 
     Act;
       (D) the extent to which international truck-borne 
     commodities move through each State;
       (E) the reduction in commercial and other travel time 
     through a major international gateway expected as a result of 
     the proposed project; including the level of traffic delays 
     at at-grade highway crossings of major rail lines in trade 
     corridors.
       (F) the extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided 
     under this subsection, including--
       (i) use of innovative financing;
       (ii) combination with funding provided under other sections 
     of this Act and title 23, United States Code; and
       (iii) combination with other sources of Federal, State, 
     local, or private funding; including State, local and private 
     matching fund.
       (G) improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo 
     security in and through the gateway concerned;
       (H) the degree of demonstrated coordination with Federal 
     inspection agencies;
       (I) the extent to which the innovative and problem solving 
     techniques of the proposed project would be applicable to 
     other border stations or ports of entry;
       (J) demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain 
     continuing comprehensive border planning processes and 
     improvement programs; and
       (K) the value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle 
     traffic, to the extent that the value of the cargo and 
     congestion impose economic costs on the nation's economy.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this amendment simply makes the technical 
changes to go with the NAFTA highway provision in the bill. It has been 
worked on by over a dozen Members. It has cosponsors. We have had no 
objection from any Member that we know of. I thank my colleagues.

[[Page S1829]]

  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I am informed it is a matter that has been cleared on 
both sides and, therefore, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2005) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question arises----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the underlying amendment was part of the 
package that just passed the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it was not.
  The question is on agreeing to the underlying amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1375), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas and others. 
That was a contentious matter. We were able to resolve it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of the manager of 
the bill. Does the Senator from Virginia have more business now?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I say to the Senator, I have some business related 
to the bill. But I want to accommodate my good friend. Does he have 
another matter?
  Mr. REID. I have something in morning business that will take about 3 
minutes. We will do that when you finish.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will forbear for a few minutes.


                Amendment No. 2006 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To change the date of a letter referred to in a provision 
                  relating to obligation limitations)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. It has been cleared on both sides. It is on behalf of 
Senator Chafee and myself.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Chafee, for 
     himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2006 
     to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 39, line 15, in the matter added by Chafee 
     Amendment No. 1311, strike ``October 6, 1997'' and insert 
     ``March 12, 1998''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment, as I said, has been 
accepted on both sides. It changes a date in the letter of the bill 
relating to obligation limitations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2006) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2007 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To provide assistance to seaports and airports affected by 
    the increase in trade with Canada and Mexico resulting from the 
  enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
                                  Act)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2007 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 amendment is as follows:

       On page 91, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (1) Affected port of entry.--The term ``affected port of 
     entry'' means a seaport or airport in any State that 
     demonstrates that the transportation of cargo by rail or 
     motor carrier through the seaport or airport has increased 
     significantly since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
     103-182).
       On page 91, line 24, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 92, line 5, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 92, line 11, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 92, line 17, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 93, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 93, line 6, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 95, line 10, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``and through affected ports of entry''.
       On page 95, line 12, insert ``and affected port of entry'' 
     after ``corridor''.
       On page 95, line 14, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``or by the State in which the affected port of 
     entry is located''.
       On page 95, strike lines 16 through 23 and insert the 
     following:
       (A) In general.--As a condition of receiving a grant under 
     paragraph (1), a State shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary that specifies that, not later than 2 years after 
     receipt of the grant--
       (i) in cooperation with the other States along the 
     corridor, the State will submit a plan for corridor 
     improvements to the Secretary; or
       (ii) the State will submit a plan for affected port of 
     entry improvements to the Secretary.
       On page 98, line 19, insert ``and affected port of entry'' 
     after ``border''.
       On page 98, line 24, insert ``or affected port of entry'' 
     before ``expected''.
       On page 99, line 12, insert ``or affected port of entry'' 
     after ``gateway''.
       On page 99, line 21, insert ``or affected port of entry'' 
     after ``border''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join with the cosponsors of this 
amendment, Senators Warner, Moynihan and Chafee in offering this 
amendment. This amendment will make so-called ``ports of entry'' 
eligible for the planning and infrastructure funding authorized for 
this new trade corridor program. To qualify for funding, a port would 
have to show that there had been a significant increase in the 
transportation of cargo by rail and motor carrier through that facility 
since the enactment of NAFTA.
  The trade corridor and border crossing program is intended to address 
the strain on the U.S. transportation system caused by the increase in 
international trade following enactment of NAFTA. However, in addition 
to the increase in commercial traffic at border crossings and along 
highways, other areas, such as ports of entry, are significant trade 
corridors for the movement of cargo, either by ship, rail or air, since 
NAFTA. These ports of entry, including the Port of New York and New 
Jersey, and the Port of Philadelphia/Camden, bears significant 
infrastructure costs from the increase of this cargo. This amendment 
would enable ports of entry to compete for funds in the Trade Corridor 
program.
  In a State-by-State comparison of the total value of international 
truck shipments through each State, New Jersey ranks third, trailing 
only New York and Pennsylvania, for total value of international 
shipments moving through the State. Thus, New Jersey's ports are 
supporting a significant portion of the Nation's international trade 
activities and are contributing a great deal to the sound economic 
status we are now enjoying. However, this increase in trade and traffic 
is taking its toll on the infrastructure of ports in States like New 
Jersey. With this amendment, these ports, that are working so hard to 
support international trade and the U.S. economy as a whole, will be 
able to apply for assistance. This amendment is a significant step 
toward addressing the burden of increased international trade on States 
with very active ports, like New Jersey.
  With this amendment, the trade corridor program will be balanced so 
that those areas and facilities that have indeed seen increases in 
cargo shipments will be eligible to compete for these scarce funds.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have sent this amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. It concerns ports 
of entry. This amendment clarifies that the ports of entry are eligible 
to participate in the trade corridor program. As I say, it has been 
accepted on both sides. I urge its adoption.

[[Page S1830]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2007) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2008 to Amendment No. 1676

     (Purpose: To provide a program for remote sensing and spatial 
                       information technologies)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott of Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2008 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 amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC.   . REMOTE SENSING AND SPATIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a program to validate remote sensing and spatial 
     information technologies for application to national 
     transportation infrastructure development and construction.
       (b) Program Stages.--
       (1) First stage.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     national policy for the use of remote sensing and spatial 
     information technologies in national transportation 
     infrastructure development and construction.
       (2) Second stage.--After establishment of the national 
     policy under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall develop new 
     applications of remote sensing and spatial information 
     technologies for the implementation of such policy.
       (c) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section in cooperation with the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration and a consortium of university research 
     centers.
       (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a program for 
remote sensing and spatial information technologies. It has been 
accepted on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2008) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the bill 
letting me proceed at this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Before the distinguished Senator speaks, do you wish to 
address the matter we discussed by phone at all at this point in time? 
Or do you feel we have covered that?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  (The remarks of Senator Reid are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.''
  Mr. WARNER. I want to continue to finish the bill here.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 2005

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent a modification to the Gramm 
amendment No. 2005, which clarifies that ``ports of entry'' are 
eligible under the ``border infrastructure and trade crossings,'' 
section of the bill be accepted.
  The modification is as follows:
       On page 2, in insert (c), after ``border'', insert: ``or 
     ports of entry''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2005), as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2009 to Amendment No. 1676

  Mr. WARNER. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2009 to amendment No. 1676.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:
       On page 100 at the end of line 14, insert: ``including the 
     deployment of technologies to detect and deter illegal 
     narcotic smuggling.''

  Mr. WARNER. The amendment makes clear that the deployment of 
technologies to delete and detect illegal narcotic drug smuggling is 
eligible activity under the Trade Corridor and Border Crossing Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2009) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2010 to Amendment No. 1676

     (Purpose: To require the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive 
  assessment of the state of the transportation infrastructure on the 
         southwest border between the United States and Mexico)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Feinstein of California which authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a study in border infrastructure at the 
Southwest border.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2010 to amendment No. 1676.

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

     SEC. 18____. SOUTHWEST BORDER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive assessment of the state of the transportation 
     infrastructure on the southwest border between the United 
     States and Mexico (referred to in this section as the 
     ``border'').
       (b) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) the Secretary of State;
       (2) the Attorney General;
       (3) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (5) the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
       (6) the Administrator of General Services;
       (7) the American Commissioner on the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Mexico;
       (8) State agencies responsible for transportation and law 
     enforcement in border States; and
       (9) municipal governments and transportation authorities in 
     sister cities in the border area.
       (c) Requirements.--In carrying out the assessment, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) assess--
       (A) the flow of commercial and private traffic through 
     designated ports of entry on the border;
       (B) the adequacy of transportation infrastructure in the 
     border area, including highways, bridges, railway lines, and 
     border inspection facilities;
       (C) the adequacy of law enforcement and narcotics abatement 
     activities in the border area, as the activities relate to 
     commercial and private traffic; and
       (D) future demands on transportation infrastructure in the 
     border area; and
       (2) make recommendations to facilitate legitimate cross-
     border traffic in the border area, while maintaining the 
     integrity of the border.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the assessment conducted under this section, 
     including any related legislative and administrative 
     recommendations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2010) was agreed to.

[[Page S1831]]

  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Chafee, Warner, 
and Moynihan to the Lautenberg amendment adopted earlier this morning 
concerning ports of entry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2011 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To identify certain routes in Louisiana as part of the North-
   South Corridor, a high priority corridor on the National Highway 
                                System)

  Mr. WARNER. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of two 
distinguished Senators from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux and Ms. Landrieu and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Breaux and 
     Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment No. 2011 to amendment No. 
     1676.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 309, strike line 3 and insert the following:
     designated Route.

     SEC. 18____. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR ROUTES 
                   IN LOUISIANA.

       Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Corridor from Kansas'' and inserting the 
     following: ``Corridor--
       ``(A) from Kansas'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) from Shreveport, Louisiana, along Interstate Route 49 
     to Lafayette, Louisiana, and along United States Route 90 to 
     the junction with Interstate Route 10 in New Orleans, 
     Louisiana.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(5)(A), by inserting ``in subsection 
     (c)(1)(B),'' after ``routes referred to''.

  Mr. WARNER. The amendment is self-explanatory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2011) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.


                   Advanced Composite Bridge Research

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate owes a great debt of gratitude 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, its Chairman (Mr. 
Chafee) and Ranking Member (Mr. Baucus) for developing an excellent 
legislative package to reauthorize the Federal surface transportation 
programs. Among the many visionary provisions in this bill, the 
Committee included a provision in S. 1173 that requires the United 
States Department of Transportation to carry out a bridge research 
grant program to demonstrate the application of innovative materials in 
the construction of bridges.
  The State of South Dakota is on the cutting edge of efforts to 
develop innovative materials for use in bridge construction. Polymer 
Bridge Systems, Inc., of Mitchell, South Dakota, has developed a very 
impressive technology that makes it possible to construct items like 
bridges and utility poles out of composite plastics. Its products use a 
relatively inexpensive bamboo core for strength. Advanced composites 
show great promise in reducing costs of bridges and speeding their 
construction, particularly in rural areas such as those found in our 
states.
  This Senator has seen samples of this innovative product. It has won 
wide national recognition ahead of others developed by large 
corporations we are all familiar with. In fact, the South Dakota 
Department of Transportation is installing a model bridge developed by 
Polymer Bridge Systems, Inc., at a weigh station in the state. This 
product shows great economic development potential, as they intend to 
manufacture it in the State.
  Mr. President, I would inquire of the distinguished ranking member 
(Mr. Baucus), if advanced composites are the type of material the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works intended to be researched 
under this new grant program?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Daschle) is entirely correct. Advanced composites are one of many types 
of innovative materials this bridge research program was created to 
deal with. Would my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the 
Committee (Mr. Chafee), agree with our assessment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I share the Senators' view that advanced 
composites deserve further investigation for their applications to 
bridge construction, and are certainly innovative materials that fall 
under the purview of the bridge research program.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues, and look forward to working with 
them on this and other important initiatives to improve our nation's 
transportation system.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to add my 
voice to those of my colleagues in support of S. 1173, the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) II. This bill is 
tremendously important to the residents of the state of Minnesota. I 
want to thank the Manager of the bill for his excellent work in 
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  ISTEA represented a comprehensive package to address all 
transportation needs. I am proud to be able to say that I will support 
S. 1173 the ISTEA reauthorization bill. This is a good piece of 
legislation. It continues the fundamental goal of the original ISTEA, 
which is to afford state and local governments greater flexibility in 
allocating transportation dollars. Investing in our transportation 
infrastructure is essential if we are to remain economically 
competitive. Today, our highways and transit systems need continued 
support in order to meet our commercial and personal transportation 
requirements.
  In addition to the ``traditional highway advocates''--the city, 
county and state officials, engineers and contractors--I have been 
working closely with community organizers, architects, 
preservationists, bicyclers and community activists. All of these 
people support ISTEA. I want to thank all of the county commissioners, 
city and state officials, as well as transit advocates, community 
organizers and others who have educated me along the way on 
transportation issues.
  I am pleased to say that the Senate will be passing a very good bill 
today that will provide a much higher level of funding for the 
transportation infrastructure and investment in Minnesota. This bill 
will make over $2 billion available to the state of Minnesota over six 
years.
  With this funding a continued federal investment will be made in 
maintaining and expanding Minnesota's highways, transit and other 
transportation related programs. Not only was the Senate able to 
increase funding for the traditional highway programs, including 
bridges, but this bill will also authorize additional funding for 
transit programs. I am pleased that several transit projects have been 
proposed in Minnesota including the Twin Cities Transitway. Improving 
existing transit and building new transit will be crucial as we see our 
population in the state continue to grow. It is clear that as our 
region continues to grow we will need alternatives to the traditional 
car and driver commuting.
  I am also pleased that this bill continues the Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise (DBE) program. The DBE program, which was first authorized 
in 1982, has been very successful in my home state of Minnesota. 
Through the DBE program minority and women owned businesses have grown. 
Businesses that in the past had been cut out from important highway 
construction dollars have been able to compete and get contracts to 
build and maintain our nation's interstate highway system.
  Transportation is critical to our daily lives. We cannot separate how 
people and goods are transported from the many other parts of their 
social and economic lives. It is important to work together to ensure 
that we have a fully integrated, safe and environmentally sound 
intermodal transportation system in the state of Minnesota and the 
country. ISTEA does this through the MPO, ATP and STIP

[[Page S1832]]

process. The planning provisions of the bill put the decision making 
back at the local level. I am pleased that the Senate bill includes 
language that I authored to require MPO's to provide meaningful public 
participation in the MPO process. While the MPO process has worked 
well, this new language will make the process that much more responsive 
to the communities that are most impacted by their decisions.
  Again, I am pleased to add my support to this important bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Momentarily, I will seek unanimous consent regarding the 
bill, but I will take this opportunity to express my profound 
appreciation to so many persons who were instrumental in achieving this 
landmark piece of legislation, which originated in the subcommittee on 
which I am privileged to chair, and with the help of the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee and ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Baucus. I think we can say with some immodesty that we 
achieved the goals we set out to establish months and months ago when 
we started hearings.
  Indeed, we held hearings in many places in the United States to get 
the input of various Governors and other State officials and people 
across our country as we were putting together this legislation, which 
I am confident will enable not only the lifestyle of individuals to 
improve, to eliminate hours, endless hours on the highways in traffic 
congestion, but to improve safety.
  I see the distinguished ranking member has just arrived. I was about 
to extol the Senator during his absence, but I will continue. Those 
goals--we sat down in the subcommittee and in the hearings that we 
had--we had a hearing in Montana, as well as Idaho, and produced the 
various principles we have incorporated in this bill. There came a time 
when Senator Baucus and I believed we needed added dollars. We made 
that effort. We lost by a single vote on the floor.
  But I think we understood at that time that the leadership, both 
Republican and Democrat, needed more time. I say throughout this bill 
we have received the strongest support from the majority leader and the 
distinguished minority leader, Mr. Daschle. As a matter of fact, the 
majority leader presided over a series of meetings we had in connection 
with the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. I can see Senator Lott in 
his private office now patiently listening as we advocated the need for 
additional funding and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Domenici, in a very pragmatic and straightforward way, explaining the 
various priorities of many programs, but the willingness on behalf of 
the majority leader to listen and the chairman of the Budget Committee 
to finally accept the consensus of that.
  Mr. Chafee worked with us throughout. There was a time when he was 
not entirely in favor of what Mr. Baucus and I were trying to do, then 
a little less disfavor with the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. I 
remember him walking out of here at one point late in the afternoon and 
he said he was going to put a shield on and take out a sword and this 
measure would not pass. He, too, came to recognize the need for 
additional funding.
  I think, indeed, the consensus of the Senate as a body--both sides 
realized, fully bipartisan--was that additional highway funding was 
needed. Senator Chafee, together with Senator Baucus, in markup in the 
full committee, got the unanimous adoption of the subcommittee bill. 
Then when there was reconciliation on the Byrd amendment, again, Mr. 
Chafee took the leadership in our committee and received unanimous 
support from all Members and eventually brought to the floor the Chafee 
amendment which added those funds.
  Mr. President, we have come a long way. We are here, and within a 
short period I hope this measure is voted on final passage.
  I want to thank Ann Loomis of my staff. I have never in my 19 years 
in the Senate witnessed a higher dedication and commitment by any 
person serving in the capacity of the staff than this fine person, 
together with her assistant, Ellen Stein, in helping me. We were joined 
by Dan Corbett, Kathy Ruffalo of Senator Baucus' staff, Jimmie Powell, 
the staff director, Thomas Sliter, the minority staff director, as well 
as Cheryl Tucker, Abigail Kinnison, and Linda Jordan. What a marvelous 
group. We have worked together in a bipartisan way to achieve this 
legislation. I hope other members of the staff and the Senate recognize 
how their peer group throughout the Senate worked--those assigned to 
the highway responsibilities and the legislative offices of every 
Senator--to bring about this bill. We thank all of you. We really got a 
remarkable piece of legislation and here we are.
  I think there is one matter still remaining. I yield the floor, and 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.


                Amendment No. 2012 to Amendment No. 1676

    (Purpose: To expand the scope of the hazard elimination program)

  Mr. WARNER. 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Torricelli, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2012.

  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 amendment is as follows:

       On page 223, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) Each'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Program.--Each'';
       (B) by inserting ``, bicyclists,'' after ``motorists''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Hazards.--In carrying out paragraph (1), a State may, 
     at its discretion,
       ``(A) identify through a survey hazards to motorists, users 
     of public transportation, bicyclists, pedestrians, and 
     individuals who live or work near transportation facilities; 
     and
       ``(B) develop and implement projects and programs to 
     address the hazards.'';

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2012) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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.


                Amendment No. 2013 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To modify a high priority corridor on the National Highway 
                                System)

  Mr. WARNER. 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Abraham and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2013 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 amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1802. MODIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.

       Section 1105(c)(18) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(18) Corridor from Indianapolis,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(18)(A) Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through 
     Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 
     through Indianapolis,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly 
     along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge 
     interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
       ``(C) Corridor from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through 
     Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to 
     Chicago, Illinois.''.

  Mr. WARNER. This amendment is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2013) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S1833]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader and the 
distinguished minority leader, I make the following unanimous consent 
request:
  I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments--with the 
exception of one to be offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Sessions, which is still under consideration as to whether or not we 
will accept it--be in order to the committee substitute, and that the 
vote occur on the substitute beginning at 2:15 today.
  I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
adoption of Senate amendment No. 1676, S. 1173 be read the third time 
and the bill be set aside upon receipt of the House companion. I 
further ask consent that at that time the Senate proceed to the House 
companion and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 
1173, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be considered 
read the third time, and passed, and the Senate insist on its amendment 
and request a conference with the House. Finally, I ask consent that S. 
1173 then be indefinitely postponed and the foregoing occur without any 
intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have now 
been informed that Senator Moseley-Braun is on her way with an 
amendment, too. I have no idea what it is.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply amend the UC to reflect two pending amendments, 
one from the Senator from Alabama and one from the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. BOND. Yes.


                Amendment No. 2014 to Amendment No. 1676

(Purpose: To designate certain segments of corridors of the Appalachian 
development highway system in Mississippi and Alabama as routes on the 
                           Interstate System)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk, as stipulated in the 
unanimous consent request just adopted, an amendment by the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Sessions, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2014 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 amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 18____. DESIGNATION OF CORRIDORS IN MISSISSIPPI AND 
                   ALABAMA AS ROUTES ON THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Designation.--Subject to subsection (b)(2), 
     notwithstanding section 103(c) of title 23, United States 
     Code, the segments described in paragraph (2) are designated 
     as routes on the Interstate System.
       (2) Segments.--The segments referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are--
       (A) the portion of Corridor V of the Appalachian 
     development highway system from Interstate Route 55 near 
     Batesville, Mississippi, to the intersection with Corridor X 
     of the Appalachian development highway system near Fulton, 
     Mississippi; and
       (B) the portion of Corridor X of the Appalachian 
     development highway system from near Fulton, Mississippi, to 
     the intersection with Interstate Route 65 near Birmingham, 
     Alabama.
       (b) Substandard Features.--
       (1) Upgrading.--Each portion of the segments described in 
     subsection (a)(2) that does not substantially meet the 
     Interstate System design standards under section 109(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be upgraded in accordance with 
     plans and schedules developed by the applicable State.
       (2) Designation.--Each portion of the segments described in 
     subsection (a)(2) that on the date of enactment of this Act 
     does not meet the Interstate System design standards under 
     section 109(b) of that title and does not connect to a 
     segment of the Interstate System shall--
       (A) be designated as a future Interstate System route; and
       (B) become part of the Interstate System at such time as 
     the Secretary determines that the portion of the segment--
       (i) meets the Interstate System design standards; and
       (ii) connects to another segment of the Interstate System.
       (c) Treatment of Routes.--
       (1) Mileage limitation.--The mileage of the routes on the 
     Interstate System designated under subsection (a) shall not 
     be charged against the limitation established by section 
     103(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Federal financial responsibility.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     designation of the routes on the Interstate System under 
     subsection (a) shall not create increased Federal financial 
     responsibility with respect to the designated segments.
       (B) Use of certain funds.--A State may use funds available 
     to the State under paragraphs (1)(C) and (3) of section 
     104(b) of title 23, United States Code, to eliminate 
     substandard features of, and to resurface, restore, 
     rehabilitate, or reconstruct, any portion of the designated 
     segments.
       (3) Eligibility for other funding.--(A) This section shall 
     not affect the amount of funding that a State shall be 
     entitled to receive under any other section of this Act or 
     under any other law.
       ``(B) Effect of provision.--Nothing in this section shall 
     result in an increase in a State's estimated cost to complete 
     the Appalachian development highway system or in the amount 
     of assistance that the State shall be entitled to receive 
     from the Appalachian Development Highway System under this 
     Act or any other Act.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Sessions is a member of the 
committee. He has worked very hard on this bill, and the citizens of 
his State should be aware of how hard he has worked on this bill, 
particularly this amendment, which has taken 3 days of negotiation to 
clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2014) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are close to wrapping up this bill. I 
would like to just inform the Senate of the very, very hard work that a 
lot of my staff have performed, as well as the staff of many others. It 
is worth repeating every time we manage a bill or are involved with a 
bill. Each of us knows how very hard and how diligent each of our 
staffs is. They don't sleep nights. They stay here all night long, and 
they work very aggressively and diligently, and they struggle home to 
sleep a little, and they get up in the morning, without complaint, and 
come back to work. They also work over weekends. It is just incredible.
  I wish the American public could see just how hard our staffs work 
for the public good. I take my hat off to them. I believe, frankly, Mr. 
President, that a most noble human endeavor is public service, whether 
it is service to church, family, friends, whatever capacity each person 
might feel most comfortable with. But our staffs' dedication to the 
public service is above and beyond the call of duty by far, and they 
don't even get any recognition for it. Senators like to get headlines, 
like to be on TV; they like to get credit for what they do for the 
people in their home States and to the country. But the staff, I say, 
work harder and get no headlines, no recognition, no credit. Why are 
they doing it? They are doing it because they believe in service to our 
States and service to our Nation. They are just tremendous.
  I would like to highlight my staff, because I know each Senator will 
do his own.
  Tom Sliter is the minority staff director. Anybody that knows Tom 
Sliter knows there is none better. There are some as good, but there is 
none better than Tom Sliter for his dedication. And the same goes for 
everybody else on the minority side.
  Kathy Ruffalo. Those who work with Kathy, try to clear amendments 
with Kathy, and go to Kathy for advice on how to work out this or that 
amendment, also know there is nobody more of an expert on the 
transportation bill or the highway bill or who finds solutions to 
problems more than Kathy.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must ask to join the Senator. Indeed, 
Kathy Ruffalo and Ann Loomis were at the very inception on the 
subcommittee, before it got up to the staff director level. They have 
really worked together as a team throughout. I certainly join in that. 
She is a distinguished citizen of the State of Montana, and she has 
weathered many

[[Page S1834]]

storms to be able to join in working late at night on this bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is true about the cooperation among our staffs. It 
is incredible. It is a joy to behold, frankly, to see Ann Loomis and 
Kathy and Tom and Dan and Jimmie. We have a real family here, I might 
say. As closely as we have worked together, it has been done without 
rancor, without anger, without any testy feelings. It has been a 
tremendous, seamless web of teamwork, and it has been wonderful. I mean 
that; I am not just saying it.
  In addition, Mike Evans and Jo-Ellen Darcy, Barbara Roberts, and John 
Hemphill have all worked just as hard. We may not see them much on the 
floor here, but behind the scenes they have worked extremely hard and 
intelligently. I have not worked that much with Ann Loomis until 
recently. She is a wonderful woman, a very talented young lady. When 
Senator Warner got up to speak on behalf of Ann, I thought, that's 
right, she is really good. The same is true with her counterpart, Kathy 
Ruffalo. They are a dynamo team. If you want to get two people working 
on a project and you want to win, get the two of them working together.
  In addition, Dan Corbett of Senator Chafee's staff is an expert. 
Also, there is Cheryl Tucker, Linda Jordan, and Amy Dunathan. I don't 
know her, but I have heard of her, and she is good. Also, Abigail 
Kinnison of Senator Chafee's staff. Jimmie Powell did a terrific job as 
majority staff director. Secretary Slater has been helpful, along with 
Jack Basso, who has been here to answer questions relating to the 
Department of Transportation. He is always available and helpful.
  In my State of Montana, Sandy Straehl, who is with the Montana 
Department of Transportation, has been terrific in working up data, 
amendments, and ways to help improve this bill. They worked very hard 
on this bill. I thank them very much.
  In addition, Janine Johnson, with the Senate legislative counsel. It 
is pretty hard, when you are working for the legislative counsel and 
putting up with urgent, immediate requests of Senators and staffs, to 
try to write legislation, write amendments in a way that makes sense, 
to advance the issues we are trying to proceed with. Janine Johnson has 
been terrific.
  There is also Ellen Stein with Senator Warner's office. Ellen has 
been working as hard as Ann and the rest of them. I could go on 
forever, but I see Senators who wish to speak. I can't speak enough 
about the staff. They have been first-rate.
  Mr. WARNER. Janine Johnson worked tirelessly, hour after hour, to see 
that our hand-scribbled notes were transitioned into legislative 
language.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to say what the distinguished 
bill managers have already said, and that is a sincere thank you to the 
many people who made this bill possible. But I want to say it again. It 
is appropriate that Chairman Warner and Senator Baucus express their 
appreciation, but I want to do so as well.
  Mr. President, highways and ISTEA debates are not an academic debate 
from Missourians; they are more life and death matters. The State of 
Missouri has always been a leader in the area of transportation. One 
example is that the first construction contract awarded under the 
Interstate Highway System some 40 years ago was for part of I-70 near 
St. Charles, MO. But the problem is that Missouri has been shortchanged 
in the past. Missouri has been a donor State putting in more than a 
dollar for every dollar they get back.
  This final bill that has been crafted through a great deal of work is 
``rough justice'' and demonstrates that reasonable people with 
passionate differences can reach compromise. My State of Missouri 
stands to gain $1.2 billion--that is not ``million''; that is 
``billion'' dollars--more over the next 6 years than during the last 6 
years to improve highway safety and infrastructure. That amounts to a 
50-percent increase to Missouri for Missouri's essential transportation 
infrastructure.
  I have worked long and hard on this bill with my distinguished 
friends and colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
The underlying bill that the committee reported addresses the 
priorities I have had all along--increased funding overall, increased 
funding for the State of Missouri, fairness, and flexibility.
  I express my sincerest thanks to Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner, 
Senator Baucus, and to all members of the committee for their 
assistance on things like my wetlands mitigation amendment, the triple-
trailer amendment, and especially the amendments that we put in with 
respect to bridges, which are vitally important to my State. I look 
forward to the House passing the bill so we can get to conference and 
send to the President a transportation bill that will take us into the 
21st century.
  I would like to offer my own special thanks, among others, to the 
fine people who were mentioned. I need to mention my assistant, Tracy 
Henke, who worked I don't know how many hundreds of hours per week and 
over the weeks on this bill, and prior to that time. I express my 
thanks to Jimmie Powell, to Dan Corbett, to Ann Loomis, Cathy Ruffalo, 
Ellen Stein, Tom Sliter, and Abigail Kinnison. As has already been 
said, these people put in untold hours, and they did what I think is a 
good job. It is a job that makes nobody perfectly happy. But it is a 
job that lays the foundation for the kind of transportation system that 
we need to have in this Nation for the 21st century.
  I am proud to have worked on this measure, and I thank my colleagues, 
and particularly their staffs who worked so hard to bring us to this 
point.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri departs the floor, I certainly want to refer to the early days 
in the consideration of this bill, and to the tenacious manner in which 
he fought on behalf of not only his State but other States that found 
themselves in similar disparity in terms of the allocation of funds 
under the 1991 act. It is through his leadership that much of the 
achievement of equity in this bill has been reached. And I just want to 
personally thank him.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say that the leadership of the chairman of 
the subcommittee is something for which we are all grateful. He helped 
donor States that were being shortchanged to come up to a much fairer 
level. It really makes a difference when you have a leader like Senator 
Warner, who is working to assure fairness to assure the goals that we 
all seek, and I am deeply indebted to my good friend for the work that 
he has done not just for Virginia, but for many States and for 
everybody in America.
  I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  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.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                Amendment No. 2015 to Amendment No. 1676

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard 
                          Elimination Program)

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. 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 Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2015.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. 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 220, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(E) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated

[[Page S1835]]

     $45,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to 
     carry out this subsection.''

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, this is an amendment authorizing 
$45 million annually across the country for railway crossing 
improvements that are necessary in high-speed rail corridors across the 
country. High-speed rail, of course, is the future of passenger rail in 
America, and it holds great promise for our country.
  One high-speed rail network is under development right now in the 
Midwest that will connect Chicago with St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, 
and possibly even Minneapolis and Cincinnati. There are a number of 
corridors under development throughout the country--in Florida, in 
California, the Pacific Northwest, North Carolina, and in New York. 
There are proposed high-speed rail corridors in Ohio, Georgia, and 
other States as well.
  Perhaps the greatest challenge impeding the development of high-speed 
rail are problems and issues at rail crossings. When trains begin to 
exceed speeds of 110 or 125 miles an hour, grade crossings that might 
otherwise be safe are made unsafe. The possibility for a tragedy 
increases incrementally.
  We had a terrible tragedy a couple of years ago outside of Chicago. A 
school bus was struck by a train in Fox River Grove, Illinois, and 
seven children died. It was a terrible tragedy. That is the type of 
accident that we ought to do everything we possibly can do to prevent. 
It should never have happened. Again, with trains going at speeds of 
110 and 125 miles an hour, the likelihood of a tragedy like this 
happening, unfortunately, increases incrementally.
  This amendment will authorize an additional $45 million annually for 
the improvement of railroad highway crossings on high-speed rail 
corridors. The funds will not come out of any other program. They will 
not come out of any one's highway or transit program. It is simply an 
authorization of additional funds for improving safety at rail 
crossings.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we know this amendment has just come to 
us, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Baucus, is now in 
consultation with the proponent. It seems to me that the amendment is 
acceptable and that this is a matter that deserves the meritorious 
consideration of the committee now and eventually in conference.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank my colleague, and I am grateful for his 
consideration of this safety matter. I know it is a matter of great 
concern to him, and the ranking member as well. I thank them both very 
much for considering this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator said, but 
with the understanding that it is amended down at the lower amounts.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Of course. I do understand that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is a needed program, particularly for high-speed rail 
crossings.
  I must say to the Senator that it is very important to address 
hazardous high-speed rail problems. It is also a problem, because 
tragically 2 days ago there was a bus accident at a rail crossing in my 
State of Montana where two schoolchildren were killed. It is 
devastating, as you might guess, to the families and to the school. It 
is a small school in central Montana. When we write this bill, we need 
to make sure that we address hazardous rail crossings across the 
country, as well as high-speed also.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I think that is right.
  Again, as the ranking member is aware, I talked about how Illinois is 
a hub State for transportation generally. We are a hub State for rail 
have among the highest numbers of rail crossings in the country. So we 
have so much more of this. We have so many more rail crossings that in 
the development of the high-speed rail--which everyone wants to see 
because it is the future of rail transportation and rail transit in the 
country--I think we need not be unmindful. We need to be mindful, and 
focus in on safety.
  I am grateful to the leaders on this legislation for their 
consideration of this matter.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might say, another Senator, I have 
just been informed, had a similar amendment. We are now checking with 
his office to determine whether or not he desires to go on, given that 
we were not able to accept his amendment in the form that it was 
presented to the committee.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. If I may, I hope that Member can be added as a 
cosponsor. I don't know who it is. If he is so willing, we would be 
happy to have the support.
  I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply want to rise to join in the 
congratulation of the leadership of this bill. It has been a pleasure 
for me to serve on this committee and on this subcommittee, and to see 
us coming finally to closure on a bill that I suspect is one of the 
most important that we will deal with in the next several years. It is 
certainly one of the most contentious, because it is one in which each 
of us seeks to satisfy our own needs, one in which we finally have to 
come to some accommodation for the different kinds of needs we have, 
and certainly no one is ever going to be perfectly satisfied. But I 
think we have come to a very successful conclusion in this bill.
  I hope that we can maintain basically the formulas that we struck. 
Obviously, the total spending is one of the issues. Obviously, the 
formula for distribution is one of the issues. Each of us have 
differences. Some of us have lots of miles and not many people; some of 
us have lots of public lands, and so on. So it is most difficult.
  I simply want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the ranking member, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the 
committee, and urge that we get on with it. Our States are waiting to 
be assured of the funds they will have, particularly in our northern 
States where the contracting season and the construction season is 
relatively short.
  All of us have properly given some credit to our staff. Each of us 
had a staff person. I had a young man named Chris Jahn, who did an 
excellent job not only working with the committee but with our State 
transportation department, and I am proud of what he did.
  So, Mr. President, I certainly add my congratulations and urge that 
we get this bill out of the Congress to the President as soon as we 
possibly can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for his 
comments, but more importantly his participation. He is a member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and has played a very active 
role throughout the formulation of this legislation, and always with a 
very gentle but firm hand saying, ``I am watching for Wyoming.'' And 
that he did. We are very proud of that. I do hope this bill is received 
in his State as it will be, I hope, in other States, as truly an 
accomplishment.
  I thank the Senator.
  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. 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, the chairman, Mr. Chafee, when the time 
came to develop this legislation, reposed his full trust and confidence 
in the subcommittee to draw up a bill. And that we did. And, indeed, 
that bill, with the exception of the additional money, remained intact 
throughout this deliberation.
  I want to pay special tribute to the members of that subcommittee who 
worked with me and Senator Baucus, the ranking member, through the 
period of a year's time. Many of them traveled with us when we went to 
various places in the United States. That is Mr. Smith; Mr. Kempthorne; 
Mr. Bond; Mr. Inhofe; and Mr. Thomas, who just spoke; Mr. Moynihan; Mr. 
Reid; Mr. Graham; and Mrs. Boxer.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Graham of Florida worked with me on STEP 21, 
which

[[Page S1836]]

was the foundation group that we eventually went into partnership with 
on Stars 2000, under the leadership of Mr. Baucus. So I want to pay 
special tribute to each of these individuals who worked so hard on this 
bill. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to pay a special tribute to the 
Senator who just spoke, Senator Warner of Virginia. This is the first 
opportunity I have had to work closely with the Senator from Virginia. 
When you work on a major bill like this, you get to learn a lot about 
the person you are working with. I want to just tell the Senator how 
much I appreciate his grace, style, honesty, dedication, efficiency in 
getting the job done, cooperation, making sure we touch all the bases, 
making sure we talk to the leader about this, better talk to the 
chairman about this and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, too; making sure all the bases are touched so we get a 
balanced, fair bill, one that is fair to everybody not only in the 
letter of the law but the spirit of it.
  Senator, you have done a great job and I want to thank you for that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, but I also thank him 
for the opportunity to learn. I remember one time we were in a hearing, 
I believe it was in Idaho, if I am correct in my recollection. You and 
I were chairing it with Senator Kempthorne. You pointed out the 
technical problems in many of the roads in the West, where they have to 
traverse such long distances and it is very expensive, given the 
weather; therefore, through the years they have shortchanged the sides 
of the road, the unpaved portions, and how that has contributed to a 
number of accidents.
  I just point out that one technical thing because throughout this 
bill it has been a great learning process on the particular needs of 
the individual States as they relate to their geographical locations, 
temperatures and weather conditions that they have. The Senator fought 
tenaciously for the West. Now he goes in to meet his greatest challenge 
in the House where there are far fewer Members of the House of 
Representatives representing the West. I know that the West can count 
on the Senator for upholding their position in this bill, which he has 
fought for and achieved, together with Senator Kempthorne, who I think 
was a partner in this endeavor. I thank the Senator for his kind 
comments but also for a learning curve that taught me a lot about 
things, like the shoulders of the road. Now this bears on your 
shoulders, to protect them in the West.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is also true you learn what a mosaic this country is 
and how each State's needs are unique. The New England States, for 
example, the Northeast States, have definite needs, obviously, with 
relation to the population density; relative donor States. Then, 
obviously, some of the Western States with public lands, some of the 
Indian roads. I compliment the Senators who worked very hard for their 
own States and who worked with the Senate to get a balance. One who 
comes to mind is Senator Levin, and Senator Abraham from Michigan.
  Mr. WARNER. Tell us.
  Mr. BAUCUS. They are very tenacious in pressing for their States' 
best interests.
  Mr. WARNER. Bulldogs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. My colleague says ``bulldogs.'' They are bulldogs. But 
they are, if possible--I am sure bulldog owners will think it's 
possible--fair bulldogs, once they charge ahead.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's add the Governor from that State.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Governor of Michigan, to say nothing of the Governors 
from some other States--Massachusetts, for example. I thank Senators 
Kennedy and Kerry for their hard work for their State, along with 
Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey and the Connecticut Senators. 
Senator Moynihan, who in many ways is the father of this bill, helped 
make sure there was a Northeast balance to the bill. And many other 
western Senators came to me and said, let's make sure this is fair to 
the West. I mentioned the donor States.
  On our committee, I would like also to thank Senator Boxer--she has 
pressed California's interests very ably--Senator Reid from Nevada; 
Senator Lieberman; Senator Lautenberg, who I also mentioned; Senator 
Graham from Florida--he is tenacious in fighting for Florida's 
interests, making sure, as a donor State it is not taken advantage of. 
But, again, it all came together in a very fair way.
  It sounds kind of platitudinous, but it is true. These Senators 
worked extremely hard for their States and at the same time, in the 
end, they worked together to make sure we would get a very strong bill. 
That is quite an achievement, frankly, as we move on to the next 
century, the next millennium. We are passing a major infrastructure 
bill--major. Every $1 billion of highway spending accounts for about 
42,000 jobs. This bill is about $171 billion, roughly, over 6 years. 
When we finish with the House, it perhaps could be a few more dollars.
  Also, just in terms of making sure our highways are as up-to-date as 
possible, as any businessman knows, the better the condition of our 
roads and highways, the less congestion there is, the more money he is 
going to make, the more that helps his bottom line. This is going to 
help us be competitive in the next century.
  Again, I thank Senators for their great work.


                    Amendment No. 2015, as modified

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am advised we need to make a technical 
adjustment to an amendment just offered, which has been agreed to, an 
amendment offered by Senator Moseley-Braun. I also understand that 
Senator Faircloth would like to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. Senator Faircloth had a very 
similar amendment, which at that time we felt we could not accept. In 
every respect he is a full cosponsor of the efforts reflected in the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois. It has now been amended to be 
an amount not to exceed $15 million.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. But there is another exception making 
sure it's not contract authority but authorizing language.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have the changes in the amendment. I 
send them to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2015), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 220, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(E)(1) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 in each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003 to carry out this subsection.
       ``(2) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 118(a), funds 
     made available under paragraph (1) shall not be available in 
     advance of an annual appropriation.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. This is the amendment that makes sure the $15 billion is 
not contract authority but is authorization. I urge its adoption.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2015), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider and move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2005, as Further Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Gramm 
amendment No. 2005 be modified to be a first-degree amendment with the 
changes that are now with the clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2005), as further modified, is as follows:
       Strike pages 98 and 99 and insert the following:
       (2) Selection of states, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, and projects to receive grants.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in selecting 
     States, metropolitan planning organizations, and projects to 
     receive grants under subsection 1116(d), the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       (A) the extent to which the annual volume of commercial 
     vehicle traffic at the border stations or ports of entry of 
     each State--
       (i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
     103-182); and
       (ii) is projected to increase in the future;
       (B) the extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in each 
     State--

[[Page S1837]]

       (i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 
     103-182); and
       (ii) is projected to increase in the future;
       (C) the extent of border or ports of entry transportation 
     improvements carried out by each State since the date of 
     enactment of that Act;
       (D) the extent to which international truck-borne 
     commodities move through each State;
       (E) the reduction in commercial and other travel time 
     through a major international gateway expected as a result of 
     the proposed project; including the level of traffic delays 
     at at-grade highway crossings of major rail lines in trade 
     corridors;
       (F) the extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided 
     under this subsection, including--
       (i) use of innovative financing;
       (ii) combination with funding provided under other sections 
     of this Act and title 23, United States Code; and
       (iii) combination with other sources of Federal, State, 
     local, or private funding; including State, local and private 
     matching fund;
       (G) improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo 
     security in and through the gateway concerned;
       (H) the degree of demonstrated coordination with Federal 
     inspection agencies;
       (I) the extent to which the innovative and problem solving 
     techniques of the proposed project would be applicable to 
     other border stations or ports of entry;
       (J) demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain 
     continuing comprehensive border planning processes and 
     improvement programs; and
       (K) the value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle 
     traffic, to the extent that the value of the cargo and 
     congestion impose economic costs on the nation's economy.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the many Senators whose cooperative efforts have brought this 
vital legislation to the Senate floor. I personally wish to thank the 
distinguished Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John 
Chafee of Rhode Island for his work in helping negotiate the deal to 
increase highway funding while maintaining the balanced budget 
agreement reached last year. When I entered the Senate in 1973 until 
1987, I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I know 
the history and evolution of highway programs in this country. We are, 
Mr. President, a country on wheels.
  I know the importance of highways to our economy. Every dollar 
invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefits to the 
nation. A transportation system that works without traffic jams, and 
efficiently moves goods across town or across the state, is an 
important asset for economic development. Good roads lower the price 
consumers pay for food, clothing and other goods. Lower prices can 
increase disposable income, attract new business and new jobs to an 
area.
  The highway system is the economic lifeblood of our nation, and of my 
home state of New Mexico. Good roads get us where we need to go, on 
time and safely. President Eisenhower recognized that roadways are the 
arteries of American body politic when he created the Interstate system 
following World War II.
  My constituents in New Mexico have indicated their biggest concern is 
roads.
  Bad roads constitute 43% of the New Mexico road system, placing us, 
Mr. Chairman, behind only Rhode Island in the highest percentage of bad 
roads in the Country. Driving on roads riddled with potholes, bumps, 
buckles and cracks costs New Mexico motorists $281 million a year just 
in additional mechanic's repair bills and operating costs.
  Highway improvements are urgently needed in New Mexico, and this 
agreement will assure us of substantial increases for that work over 
next 6 years. Should the current version of this bill pass, New Mexico 
would receive more than $1.5 billion for road construction and 
maintenance funds over the next six years--a 48% increase.
  Financing highway construction and related activities creates jobs. 
Almost 10 million workers, a full seven percent of the civilian 
workforce, are employed in transportation and related industries. Each 
$1 billion in new federal highway investment nationwide generates an 
additional 439 full-time jobs in my state of New Mexico.
  Repairing the national transportation system will increase 
productivity in all sectors of the economy. The goal of this 
legislation is the efficient and safe transportation of goods and 
people. We have agreed to spend all incoming gas taxes on highways, so 
New Mexicans can be sure they are getting their money's worth at the 
pump. We have encountered some potholes on this road of reaching an 
agreement consistent with the balanced budget agreement. But make no 
mistake, throughout negotiations, Pete Domenici has been for building 
roads in New Mexico.
  The New Mexico Legislature recently approved, and Governor Johnson 
signed, a $1.1 billion highway funding package that depends on federal 
dollars from this legislation to complete projects in the state. For 
the first time in history, every community in New Mexico with a 
population over 15,000 will be served by a four lane highway connected 
to the interstate highway system. For example, Highway 44 between 
Bernalillo and Bloomfield, one of the most dangerous stretches of road 
in the country, will be widened to 4 lanes with the arrival of these 
additional federal dollars.
  After waiting for more than 25 years, New Mexico will finally be able 
to complete improvements to highway 70; a vital link on the Eastern 
side of the state connecting the mountainous community of Ruidoso to 
Roswell and Portales.
  What we in New Mexico affectionately refer to as ``the Big I''--the 
intersection of Interstates 25 and 40 which bisects the state in 
Albuquerque--is in desperate need of improvement. Too often this area 
resembles a parking lot rather than a main thoroughfare. Traffic is so 
bad that normally courteous drivers often become frustrated and succumb 
to ``road rage;'' jockeying for position, cutting each other off, and 
making single-finger salutes.
  A recent Albuquerque Journal article suggests that motorists in New 
Mexico's largest city may begin to refer to 1998 as the year of the 
orange barrel. However, the city of Albuquerque, as well as the nation, 
will benefit from the long-awaited improvements to this vital 
crossroad.
  Congestion and traffic have contributed to the ``brown cloud'' in 
Albuquerque from carbon monoxide. The $6.6 million provided to New 
Mexico annually in the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality portion of 
this bill will continue the programs which have allowed Albuquerque to 
become the first U.S. city to emerge from non-compliance with air 
quality standards.
  It may seem unusual to some that a Senator from New Mexico helped 
protect mass transit dollars in this road bill. However, New Mexico 
will benefit from these funds in the development of transit systems in, 
as well as between, her larger cities. Even the smaller city of Roswell 
as contributed to mass transit technology. The NovaBus Corporation has 
designed efficient busses which have been utilized in metropolitan 
areas like New York City. New Mexico has lots to offer our nation's 
transportation needs.
  New Mexico is the fifth largest state, comprising nearly 3.5% of the 
land area of the United States, yet it ranks only 36th in population. 
However, New Mexico is also one of the fastest growing states in the 
Union, and its traffic volume has tripled in the last ten years. Heavy 
18 wheelers moving goods pass through New Mexico, between manufacturing 
and population centers in Texas and California. We don't directly 
benefit from the majority of this traffic, but it does tear up our 
roads.
  As I have been recently reminded, almost 27 million acres of my fair 
state, approximately \1/3\ of its land area, is owned by the federal 
government, with more held in trust for the many native Americans 
within its borders. As this nation's Interstate highway ages, repaving 
and maintenance is endless. Major reconstruction is necessary, which is 
the state's responsibility. New Mexico maintains highway systems 
through those lands, while having no tax base to recover any costs.
  I am pleased this bill includes an additional $250 million for 
roadway improvements on public lands throughout the nation. Perhaps the 
National Park Service will improve the roads within the Chaco Culture 
National Historic Park so that visitors from around the country will be 
able to share in its splendor.
  New Mexico also shares 175 miles of its border with Mexico. Our state 
has welcomed the increased economic activity associated with the 
passage of

[[Page S1838]]

NAFTA, but the nation must also realize the increased traffic and cost 
to road infrastructure which has followed. I am pleased that this bill 
includes $450 million for states to meet NAFTA -related road needs. I 
am also pleased my amendment which amends the Trade corridor and Border 
Crossing planning program was approved.
  This amendment allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider the 
projected increase in commercial traffic when selecting recipients of 
border grants. The current provisions direct the Secretary of 
Transportation to only consider current and past traffic when 
allocating funds under this program. Many border facilities, including 
Santa Teresa in New Mexico, have opened since the passage of NAFTA. 
This amendment will enable the Secretary to consider the future growth 
of commercial traffic at ports when awarding grant requests.
  I, along with the other Senator from New Mexico, also offered 
amendments which enable the Department of Transportation to benefit 
from the expertise of our nation's federal laboratories in solving 
transportation needs. In utilizing existing laboratory capability where 
appropriate, we can ensure past taxpayer investment will earn dividends 
long into the future. Our amendments encourage cooperation and 
information exchange within the federal system in development of 
transportation technology. We should, where we can, avail ourselves of 
the exceptional talent already available in our federal laboratories.
  I encourage the prompt passage of ISTEA II in the Senate, so that the 
House of Representatives will quickly address the country's 
transportation needs and construction can continue without delay. New 
Mexico is a large state with a small population, many citizens are 
isolated without adequate roads. Contract authority provided by this 
legislation is needed to continue federal road and transit construction 
and maintenance throughout the country. Major construction season is 
about to commence; states need their highway funds.
  I urge prompt passage of this important bill.
  Mr. President, again, let me thank all the Senators who have worked 
together to get this bill moving on the Senate floor. In addition to 
the distinguished chairman Chafee, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator 
Phil Gramm, who originally brought up the idea trying to spend as much 
of the 4.3 cents as had been transferred to the trust fund as possible, 
consistent with the caps we have heretofore agreed upon in the balanced 
budget.
  During the 14 years I served on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee I learned that there is nothing more important to the 
American people and the people of my State than the roads they drive 
every day of their lives. Many Americans work miles from where they 
live. Freedom to many is to get where you want to go as easily as 
possible, and in your own car.
  Frankly, I believe that is as much a part of the good life in America 
as anything else.
  But while we have been taking highway money and spending it on other 
projects, congestion grows. While we are all interested in mass transit 
and transportation technology, it is obvious that you have to spend 
money on bricks, mortar, cement, and the like, to improve the roadway 
system.
  New Mexicans are going to be very pleased when this bill clears the 
House and goes to the President, because our State is going to be able 
to take care of many projects that have been long delayed. We will try 
to make improvements to the interstate in our largest city to relieve 
congestion. A city of 750,000 should not be so congested.
  There are many aspects of this bill that are going to help New 
Mexico. Many of roads on Indian lands are impassable in winter months. 
Only in the last 16 years have we been allocating federal funds to 
improve these roads, and this bill increases that funding by $50 
million to $250 million annually.
  Our legislature has cooperated with our Governor, and they have a 
series of major projects that are going to be funded out of the highway 
program in, indeed, new and innovative ways, with long-term bonds and 
financing, if and when this bill becomes law. I look forward to that.
  I have already commented how this highway money is needed in the 
State of New Mexico. I will conclude by saying that when we have an 
economy as robust as ours is today, it is not time to let up on road 
building. Our economy lives on the highways and byways of America. The 
more congestion, the less efficient, the less effective we are. Moving 
business efficiently and effectively the length and breadth of this 
nation, will ensure the American economy continuing its rather 
tremendous competitive advantage in the world.
  From the smallest town that needs its roads improved to the very big 
issue of how this Nation remains competitive--I feel that passage of 
this bill is as important as anything else we do in the next 4 or 5 
years.


         increasing the allocations to indian reservation roads

  Most Indians today still live in poverty. This is reflected in a per 
capita income figure that is one-sixth to one-fifth the national 
average for the 10 largest Indian reservations. In simplest terms, most 
reservation Indians have one dollar of income for every five dollars of 
income available to average Americans.
  On the Papago reservation in Arizona, the per capita income is $3,113 
compared to $18,325 for all Americans (1990 Census). At Zuni Pueblo, 
the per capita income is $3,904 and at that Navajo reservation it is 
$3,735. These figures have changed only slightly since the 1990 Census.
  Fifty-one percent of American Indians residing on reservations live 
below the poverty line; and unemployment averages 37%.
  ISTEA has already helped tremendously to increase the accessibility 
of Indian people, but much remains to be done.
  We can help accelerate the movement of Indian people into mainstream 
economic activities by improving their accessibility to better markets 
and better tourism opportunities.
  ISTEA II, S. 1173, now authorizes a grand total of $173 billion for 
all programs over the six year life of the bill. This is a nominal 
increase of about 43 percent.
  As passed by the Senate, S. 1173 funds the Indian Reservations Roads 
Program at $200 million for 1998 and $250 million per year for each of 
the following five years of the bill, from 1999 through 2003.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Environment and Public Works has 
included $9 million annually (within the total $250 million) to allot 
to the repair and construction of Indian bridges.
  The Domenici-Inouye-Bingaman amendment, as accepted by the Committee 
will add a total of $250 million over five years.
  Our amendment brings the six year total IRR funds up to $1.450 
billion from the current $1.200 billion prior to the Domenici 
amendment.
  While our original IRR bill, S. 437, included road maintenance as an 
eligible activity, this amendment does not include road maintenance. We 
expect the BIA to continue to fund its road maintenance program, 
hopefully at higher levels than $25 million per year.
  The Indian Reservation Road Program is directed to about 22,000 miles 
of BIA roads serving Indian lands. There is a total road mileage, 
counting BIA, state, federal, tribal, and county roads, of about 50,000 
miles on our nation's Indian lands. The BIA is directly responsible for 
about 44% of this total road system serving Indian tribes. About 5% are 
tribal roads and the other half are other federal roads and state and 
county roads.
  Within the BIA road system, 22,000 miles of roads, only 11% of the 
paved roads are rated as being in good condition. Of the unpaved roads, 
90% are known to be in poor condition. None of the BIA unpaved roads 
are rated as being in good condition.
  Since 1982, the Highway Trust Fund has been the primary source of 
funds for the design and construction of BIA roads serving Indian 
tribes. In the mid-1980's this funding was about $100 million per year; 
it fell to about $80 million per year in the late-1980's; and with the 
advent of ISTEA I, Indian Reservation Roads have been funded at $191 
million per year.
  Now that Welfare Reform is a reality, it is more imperative than ever 
to help create Indian reservation-based employment opportunities. ISTEA 
funding has become the primary source of road planning and construction 
in Indian Country.

[[Page S1839]]

  In addition to direct employment opportunities, ISTEA funds provide 
an essential component of community infrastructure development. As 
observed in the Committee Report on S. 1173,

       Transportation provides the links between businesses, 
     industries and consumers. The national economic benefits of a 
     healthy and reliable Federal investment in transportation 
     infrastructure are well documented.

  The ability of new businesses to arise in Indian Country is seriously 
hindered by the current state of their road system. Health and 
education indicators are also well below national averages.
  Today's Senate action to increase the Indian Reservation Road program 
by $50 million per year will add significantly to improving the 
accessibility of Indian reservations to the benefits of our national 
economy.
  On the Navajo reservation, annual funding is likely to increase from 
about $55 million to over $65 million. On Pueblo lands in New Mexico, 
funding will increase from about $12 million to $15 million.
  I am pleased that the full Senate preserved this important funding 
increase for Indian reservation roads to $250 million per year, from 
$200 million per year, as originally proposed by the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and from $191 million per year under current 
law.
  Another significant change in this legislation is the national 
priority system for Indian reservation bridges. Rather than allocate a 
small percentage of bridge funds from each of the fifty states for use 
within those states, we now have a single national Indian bridge 
program that will target the most deficient bridges for early repair or 
replacement.
  I thank Chairman Chafee and Ranking Member Baucus for their 
assistance in adding significant funding for the Indian Reservation 
Road Program and creating a simpler Indian bridge program.


                             NHTSA FUNDING

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize 
the very important role of the National Highway Transportation Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) and its immense contributions to promoting 
transportation safety throughout our nation. I would particularly like 
to commend Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of NHTSA, for his strong 
leadership in highway safety over these past several years.
  Since 1992, seat belts, child safety seats, motorcycle helmets, and 
the age 21 minimum drinking age laws have saved over 40,000 lives. 
Thanks in large part to NHTSA, the nation also has made great progress 
in reducing the motor vehicle fatality rate. In 1966, when the highway 
safety statute NHTSA administers was enacted, the nation's motor 
vehicle fatality rate stood at 5.5 deaths per hundred million vehicle 
miles traveled. Today it stands at 1.7, the lowest rate recorded.
  The keystone of NHTSA's efforts in highway safety, jointly 
administered with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is the 
State and community highway safety grant program, commonly referred to 
by its US Code provision as the ``Section 402'' program. The major goal 
of the Section 402 Program is to provide Federal leadership, 
encouragement and technical assistance to States and communities in 
their effort to develop and implement the most effective highway safety 
programs to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and 
property damage. Section 402 funds are provided to all States, 
territories, the District of Columbia, and the Secretary of the 
Interior on behalf of Indian Reservations. At least 40 percent of these 
funds are used for local and community projects with the remainder 
going to the State.
  Last week, the Commerce Committee's safety amendment to S. 1173 was 
adopted by unanimous consent. That amendment acknowledges the important 
functions of NHTSA and authorizes funding for the agency's many 
programs for six years. Unfortunately, due to budget considerations, 
the authorization levels included in the Commerce Committee's 
amendments for NHTSA's highway safety programs, as well as programs 
under the Office of Motor Carriers, fall short of meeting agency needs 
forecast for the next six years.
  Mr. President, I want to ensure there is no question about the 
Committee's commitment to transportation safety. While many of us wish 
we could have authorized funding at the levels requested by the 
Administration, the Committee had to also acknowledge the budget 
agreement entered into last year. Accordingly, the levels authorized 
for NHTSA and all of the other safety programs authorized under our 
amendment reflect that budget agreement.
  I am well aware additional funds are needed to meet NHTSA's goals on 
such vital programs as safety belt use and drunk driving prevention. As 
Chairman of the authorizing committee, I stand ready to increase the 
funding levels should an agreement be reached with the Budget Committee 
and other pertinent Committees to enable a higher authorization level 
for NHTSA, as well as other agencies' safety programs.
  While we have not found a way to increase the funding at this time, I 
will continue working on this during conference consideration. I will 
do all I can during conference deliberations to seek higher authorizing 
levels for transportation safety.


                           Amendment No. 1977

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to address 
a Senate action which took place yesterday on March 11, 1998, 
specifically the passage of my amendment number 1977 to the bill S.1173 
which involves the addition of Elbert and Hart Counties, Georgia to the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
  First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the 
Chairman Senator Chaffee and Ranking Member Senator Baucus for their 
superb leadership on this bill as well as Senators Warner and Byrd for 
their input and guidance to insure that my efforts on behalf of Elbert 
and Hart Counties in Georgia were able to come to fruition. I also wish 
to commend Georgia Governor Zell Miller for his role in bringing this 
matter to my attention.
  As you know, my amendment will allow Elbert and Hart counties to gain 
membership in the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). I am extremely 
proud to be able to help the fine Georgians who reside in Elbert and 
Hart Counties to join the region served by the ARC. Back when the 
Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965, these two 
counties were geographically eligible to be included, but the local 
leadership at the time declined to do so.
  Well, here we are, over 30 years later, and the people of Elbert and 
Hart Counties have been given what we all need in life, ``a second 
chance.'' The economic and educational assistance provided by the 
valuable programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission will be 
extremely valuable for the fourty-thousand or so people who reside in 
Elbert and Hart Counties in their efforts to better their economies and 
their communities.
  I, along with those Georgians of Elbert and Hart Counties, would like 
to thank my Senate colleagues for their wisdom and generosity in 
providing for successful passage of this amendment.


 alameda corridor-east project in the san gabriel valley of california

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before we bring to a close this 
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, I'm 
pleased to draw the attention of the Senate to an outstanding trade 
corridor project in my home state of California.
  The Senate may remember that, in 1996, I worked with the state of 
California and the California delegation to achieve funding for the 
Alameda Corridor, a major trade corridor to move the thousands of box 
cars a day unloaded at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles through 
southern Los Angeles County to Redondo Junction. From there, the 
railroads move the cargo east to virtually every state in the Union. 
While I'm very pleased that we were able to arrange a private public 
partnership to fund the Alameda Corridor, I must point out that further 
work must be done to relieve the congestion east of the Alameda 
Corridor.
  As the trains are loaded at Redondo Junction, they head east, going 
through a very heavily populated area known as the San Gabriel Valley. 
In this 35-mile corridor, there are 79 highway rail grade crossings 
located along the Union Pacific and former Southern Pacific main lines 
between downtown Los Angeles and the City of Pomona. The train traffic 
through this Valley is currently 67 trains per day and is projected to 
increase about 60% to as high

[[Page S1840]]

as 109 trains per day by the year 2020. This will result in a doubling 
of the amount of time a grade crossing will be closed, to as high as 
140 minutes a day. This obviously has adverse effects on mobility, both 
for the local citizen and freight movement. More important, however, it 
has a terrible impact on safety and I believe it is our responsibility 
to address this situation.
  I am pleased to report that the San Gabriel Valley Council of 
Governments, working in concert with the Southern California 
Association of Governments and the California Department of 
Transportation, has developed a plan to improve safety and mobility in 
the San Gabriel Valley. It is a very aggressive 8-year, $950 million 
program which calls for an initial investment of $220 million from the 
Federal government over the next 6 years. The program is ready to begin 
immediately with a jump-start program of $60 million, which would 
address the most critical bottlenecks and improve safety through a 
series of grade crossing improvements and traffic signalization. In 
addition to the safety and mobility aspects, if fully implemented, the 
Alameda Corridor East Gateway to America Project would annually take 
128 tons of air pollutants out of the worst air basin in the nation.
  This is a very important project, Mr. President, and I ask that when 
you go to conference with the House you give this project every 
consideration in urging the Secretary of Transportation to support this 
project out of the discretionary monies in the high priority trade 
corridor program of this legislation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, from my visits to California, I have 
learned first hand how the traffic coming through the Ports of Long 
Beach and Los Angeles are expected to more than double by the year 2020 
with 25% of all U.S. imports coming through these two ports. If we are 
to realize the benefits of this increased trade, we must improve the 
efficient movement of the cargo throughout this nation while at the 
same time taking every step to enhance the safety of the residents of 
the area and to improve the environment.
  The Senator should be assured that I will give this project every 
consideration as we move to final enactment of this bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to express 
appreciation to the Environment and Public Works Committee members, 
particularly Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Warner, for the yeoman's 
effort they have made to get this bill to the floor and ultimately 
passed by the United States Senate.
  Developing a measure this complex, with so many competing interests, 
isn't easy. Believe me, I've been there, done that. My hat is off to my 
colleagues who have succeeded in guiding this well-balanced package 
this far through the legislative process.
  My colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee have had 
a difficult row to hoe in even bringing this measure to the floor a few 
weeks ago. In fact, I seem to recall hearing that the joke around the 
EPW Committee was that ISTEA was a six year reauthorization, not a six 
year reauthorization process.
  Additionally, I commend our determined and highly effective Majority 
Leader. Without the direct influence of Senator Lott, we would not have 
gotten a bipartisan agreement on the committee's amendment to ISTEA 
which provides for additional funding for highway projects. And without 
his statesmanlike intervention last fall, we would not have had the 
six-month extension that was so critical to Utah and, I'm sure, to 
other states as well.
  Along with my junior colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, I 
communicated my concerns about the effect that a delay on the ISTEA 
reauthorization would have on my state of Utah to the Majority Leader, 
and I appreciate the fact that he moved quickly on this legislation 
once the Senate returned from the recent recess.
  I commend as well, Senators Domenici, Byrd and Gramm for their 
efforts in ensuring that our nation's vital transportation 
infrastructure needs are met in a responsible manner which does not 
violate the balanced budget agreement.
  I enthusiastically support final passage of ISTEA. Here's why.
  Utah faces a number of transportation challenges. The most critical 
is the reconstruction of the I-15 corridor. Designed in the 1960s, with 
a life span of 20 years, the seventeen mile I-15 corridor enters its 
third decade with certain areas close to collapse.
  In photos I have observed which detail the level of disintegration to 
the highway and bridge structure along I-15, I could actually see the 
sky breaking through holes in the infrastructure.
  It has also been reported that employees who park underneath some of 
the I-15 bridge structures had to sign safety waivers! Before 
construction began, a dozen of the bridges along I-15 posed direct 
safety threats.
  Additionally, despite an earthquake fault line along the Wasatch 
front, none of I-15's bridges met modern earthquake standards.
  The I-15 corridor reconstruction project is vital to the economic 
growth of our nation, the safety of the traveling public, and presents 
a unique opportunity to study the effects of an innovative ``Design/
Build'' approach to highway construction.
  The I-15 project is the largest ``Design/Build'' project ever 
undertaken in the United States. As my colleagues know, the ``Design/
Build'' process is the cost and time savings process of having the same 
contracting team that designs the project actually build the project.

  In Utah, it is estimated that this approach will save half a billion 
dollars and cut construction time in half. The I-15 project will 
provide vital data to transportation policy makers, engineers, and 
state and federal departments of transportation as more states opt to 
use the ``Design/Build'' approach.
  In addition to the challenges associated with the I-15 corridor 
project, Utah is a fast growing state that must make substantial 
improvements to accommodate not only its own rapid growth but also 
interstate commerce.
  And, although some colleagues may think of Utah as being an 
essentially rural state with wide open spaces, Utahns face rush hour 
traffic gridlock that rivals the Washington Beltway.
  The rate of population growth in Utah currently exceeds the national 
average by two to three times. Over the next two decades, the 
population in the Salt Lake Valley alone is expected to escalate to 1.3 
million people, a 66% increase.
  The area south of Salt Lake is becoming known as the new ``Silicon 
Valley,'' home to Novell and other high tech employers. North of Salt 
Lake, the population of Davis and Weber Counties are expected to grow 
55% and 37%, respectively. All together, the 100-mile corridor along 
the Wasatch Front will exceed 2 million by 2015.
  Travel in the Salt Lake Area is projected to grow significantly over 
the next 20 years. Total trips will grow by 57%, from 7.25 million 
trip-ends per day to 11.4 million in 2015.
  Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) will grow even faster, from current 
level of 21 million to 34 million in 2015 or 62%.
  Our dependence on mass transit is also increasing. Total daily 
transit ridership will be 128,000 by 2010--an increase of 103% over 
1993.
  All of this would be enough for Utahns to support prompt passage of 
the ISTEA reauthorization. But, in addition, Utah faces an important 
deadline for completion of key transportation projects. That deadline, 
of course, is the 2002 Winter Olympics, which Salt Lake City will host 
on behalf of all Americans.
  During the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, more than 2 million tickets 
will be issued to 179 events, which will be spread over five city and 
five mountain venues, each within a 55 minute drive of the Olympic 
Village.
  It goes without saying that the efficient--not to mention safe--
transportation of athletes, their families and coaches, American and 
foreign press, volunteers and visitors from one place to another is 
crucial. And, we can't postpone critical construction and improvements. 
In Utah's climate, we have basically four construction seasons 
remaining to meet this deadline, and some of our road projects are 
necessarily going to have to be front-loaded into this time frame.
  I know that I felt a sense of pride when the Olympic flag passed from 
Japan to the United States at the closing ceremonies in Nagano. Perhaps 
my colleagues noticed the banner carried by our U.S. athletes into the 
arena

[[Page S1841]]

that said: ``Thank you, Nagano! See you in Salt Lake!'' You don't have 
to be a Utahn to want to show off our country.
  I am confident that the bill before us provides the funding and the 
mechanism for Utah to meet its own transportation needs as well as to 
fulfill its obligation to our country as host of this prestigious 
international event.
  Again, I want to commend and thank my colleagues for their fine work 
on this legislation. I am pleased to vote for final passage of S. 1173.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we come again to the highway bill and 
the question of fairness. Seven years ago I voted against passage of 
the highway bill, called ``ISTEA,'' because it did not provide a fair 
share of funding to South Carolina. We were told we had a so-called 
``90% minimum allocation,'' but hindsight now shows that we received 
only 71 cents on the dollar.
  I think we are on a better track today. The latest chart shows South 
Carolina getting 90 cents on the dollar for apportioned funds. I still 
do not believe that amount is fair, but it represents progress and I 
will keep working to improve on this amount. Also, ``donor'' states 
like South Carolina were told last week that the bill would provide a 
floor of 91 cents on the dollar, and we clearly do not have that 
guarantee in the bill yet. However, I appreciate the difficult job the 
managers of the bill have in balancing the many needs under this bill, 
and have tried to help them pass a fair bill in accords with the needs 
of my state.
  Particularly, I have strongly supported putting increased gas tax 
funds into the Highway Trust Fund, and spending those funds on highways 
rather than non-transportation purposes. This is the right thing to do, 
it is good budget policy, and of course, it helps the managers of this 
bill provide an increased share of funding for ``donor'' states like 
South Carolina.
  Again, I remain concerned that, while there was an indication last 
week that donor states would receive 91 cents back for each dollar 
contributed, donor states have not in reality been given this amount. 
And I stand by my support for legislation giving donor states a 
guarantee of 95 cents or higher. But I am pleased to see some progress 
on the issue of fairness and hope we can continue to work together to 
improve the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I join the majority of my 
colleagues today in expressing strong support for the reauthorization 
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, otherwise 
known as ``ISTEA.'' I was a proud supporter of this legislation in 1991 
and continue to support its goals today.
  While the acronym ``ISTEA'' is often joked about, it does share at 
least one quality of the popular summer drink--It is refreshing. ISTEA 
also represents a revolutionary change from past transportation 
legislation and a shift toward an integrated, intermodal transportation 
system to promote efficiency and economic growth. Some of its major 
provisions include: assurance that gas tax dollars are used for 
transportation purposes, greater planning authority for state and local 
governments, increased research for innovative technologies such as 
intelligent vehicle highway systems, and funding for environmental 
protection activities.
  A reauthorized ISTEA should continue to recognize regional 
differences, but at the same time, recognize that our transportation 
system is a national system. Certainly, every state wants to get its 
``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each state's needs with the 
needs of the nation as a whole.
  While there is some merit to having various funding programs to serve 
specific needs, it is important to me in the development of this 
legislation that we refrain from creating new funding categories or 
set-asides, and allow for maximum flexibility between the various 
programs. I also believe we should not be adding onerous mandates or 
sanctions on the states. I firmly believe that state governments are 
capable of protecting the health and safety of their citizens.

  From New Hampshire's perspective, it is important to ensure that 
small states continue to receive adequate funding for their 
infrastructure needs. New Hampshire strongly supports certain programs, 
such as the Bridge Rehabilitation, Scenic Byway and Recreational Trail 
programs, that other states may not need as much. The strength of ISTEA 
is that it recognizes these varying needs and provides states with the 
flexibility to direct funding as they see appropriate.
  There are many challenges before us as we operate in a balanced 
budget environment--something for which I have fought long and hard. 
Our needs will always outweigh our resources. But, we also have to 
recognize how critical our transportation system is to our economy and 
social well-being. While it is difficult to balance these frequently 
competing goals, I believe this bill strikes the right balance in 
providing an adequate amount of resources within the context of the 
balanced budget agreement reached last year.
  There is one other subject that I want to touch on briefly, and that 
is the environmental review and permitting process. I believe S. 1173 
makes good progress toward streamlining the environmental review 
process. However, I do not believe we have gone far enough in resolving 
this problem.
  As it stands now, it takes as long as eight years to complete the 
planning and permitting phase of a highway project. This is simply too 
long and too wasteful of taxpayer dollars. We must take steps to 
shorten this process while still maintaining high environmental 
standards.
  There are numerous examples from all regions of the country that show 
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.
  We need to bring some common sense and reason to the environmental 
permitting process. Unfortunately, there are certain groups who 
consider the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, to be sacred and 
untouchable. But, 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. 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.
  In addition, I am pleased that the bill managers agreed to include my 
amendment to authorize a recycled materials research program at the 
University of New Hampshire, UNH. UNH has already begun extensive 
research into the use of secondary or recycled materials in 
transportation infrastructure. The data developed through the 
university's testing and demonstration of the feasibility of certain 
recycled materials in road building will be extremely valuable to state 
departments of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and 
the construction industry.
  On balance I believe this is a good bill and deserves Senate 
approval. I look forward to swift action by the House on its ISTEA 
reauthorization bill, so we can get to conference and reach final 
agreement by the May 1 expiration date. Thank you, Mr. President, and I 
yield the floor.


                         air quality standards

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to commend my friend from 
Oklahoma for his leadership in educating me and my colleagues about the 
new air quality standards. Before we wrap up action on ISTEA, I would 
ask that he clarify a few issues regarding his amendment that was 
adopted earlier by the Senate.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would be pleased to respond to the Majority Leader, and 
I would like to thank him for his assistance in getting this amendment 
adopted.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my friend from Oklahoma. It is my understanding 
that the amendment you offered would not affect any pending litigation, 
nor

[[Page S1842]]

would it ratify the new standards. Is that a correct assessment of the 
savings clause?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct, nothing in the amendment will affect 
pending lawsuits and nothing will affirm or ratify EPA's standards.
  Mr. LOTT. On the day that the amendment was offered, the Senator from 
Oklahoma discussed a conversation he had with the EPA Administrator. I 
would appreciate a clarification of that conversation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Majority Leader 
raised this issue. I have seen press reports that have not accurately 
represented my conversation with Administrator Browner. During that 
conversation, I indicated that I had no plans to offer any additional 
clean air NAAQS legislation this year should the amendment be signed 
into law, barring any unforeseen circumstances. I did not indicate, 
however, that I would not offer clean air standards legislation after 
this year. I would not want to give up my right to legislate in the 
future and I did not do that.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate the 
Senator's willingness to work with the EPA and other federal agencies, 
and agree that it is the prerogative of the Senate to decide how and 
when to legislate.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's efforts and commend his 
success on this amendment. He has dedicated countless hours to this 
issue, both personally and in his subcommittee, and I thank him. I 
fully expect to see his clean air standards amendment--if not a 
stronger one--in the final bill reported from Conference.


               gramm-gorton amendment on section 1116(d)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Gramm-
Gorton amendment which modifies Section 1116(d), the Trade Corridor and 
Border Crossing Planning provision. This amendment will improve the 
criteria for receiving funds under this section and ensure that these 
funds are best utilized.
  The U.S. economy depends on the efficient flow of goods, and the 
federal government has realized that bottlenecks at U.S. ports are a 
national concern. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are the second 
largest load center in the United States, with more than 70 percent of 
their cargo traveling to or from points outside the Puget Sound region. 
Congestion around these ports can cause significant delays which are 
not acceptable in today's just-in-time high-technology economy.
  As a major gateway to Asia, Washington state serves as a major export 
and import hub for trans-Pacific trade. By 2015 Asia is expected to 
comprise 45% of the world population, and a significant amount of the 
goods traveling to and from this region will pass through Washington 
state ports, both land and sea. As the volume of trade grows, rail, 
truck, and air traffic will increase proportionally.
  Mr. President, as anyone who has driven in the Puget Sound region 
will attest, it is no joy to travel the I-5 or I-405 during rush hour. 
While the Sound and Lake Washington add so much of the beauty to this 
unique region, they also form geographical barriers that limit 
transportation options. These two bodies of water necessitate narrow 
transportation corridors, much like a funnel, that create massive 
congestion problems. When you add in freight traffic of trucks and 
trains, you have a serious situation that requires a serious solution.
  Local officials have recognized the severity of the transportation 
problems of the region and have developed the Freight Action Strategy 
for the Seattle-Tacoma Corridor (FAST Corridor) to address these needs. 
The FAST Corridor project identifies choke points from Everett to 
Tacoma that both hinder freight mobility and increase traffic 
congestion. Solutions to these problems will take a comprehensive 
effort encompassing federal, state, local, and private interests.
  The region is prepared to address these problems, and is awaiting 
assistance at the federal level to meet the daunting challenge of 
improving freight mobility and automobile traffic. The explosive 
projected growth in the Northwest, coupled with pressing infrastructure 
needs can only be mitigated by this cooperative effort which I look 
forward to facilitating.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to commend 
the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator 
Chafee, and Senators Warner and Baucus for their work on this 
transportation reauthorization bill. It is not easy to balance the 
competing interests in this bill, but I believe the managers of this 
reauthorization bill have been fair and very accommodating. In short, 
they have done an excellent job in shepherding this bill through the 
Senate.
  I would like to bring an issue that is very important to my fellow 
Ohioans who reside and work in Cuyahoga County to the attention of my 
friend from Rhode Island.
  In late 1996, the Ohio Department of Transportation submitted a 
request to the Federal Highway Administration requesting funding 
approval for the Cuyahoga River Bridge project in Cleveland through the 
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program. The project would 
reduce the volume of heavy industrial traffic in Cuyahoga County by 
nearly one million miles each year, reducing vehicle emissions and 
removing thousands of vehicles from crowded city streets. Consequently, 
construction of this bridge is very important to Northeast Ohio's 
efforts to remain in compliance with air quality standards. By removing 
large volumes of industrial traffic from city streets, construction of 
the bridge would also enhance safety and would save significant sums of 
money by reducing road maintenance costs to municipalities and the 
State of Ohio.
  Unfortunately, FHWA was not able to approve CMAQ funding for 
construction of this bridge due to statutory restrictions. In a letter 
dated February 26, 1997, Jane Garvey, then Acting Administrator of 
FHWA, stated that, ``Because the Cuyahoga River Bridge project involves 
the construction of a new two-lane bridge that, as proposed, will add 
capacity for single-occupant vehicles, it does not meet CMAQ criteria 
for eligibility.'' In other words, despite the obvious environmental 
benefits of having this bridge, CMAQ funds could not be used because it 
would add capacity for single-occupant vehicles.
  Mr. President, this project is very important to Cleveland, Northeast 
Ohio, and the State of Ohio. I do not believe that, because it does not 
fall under a set of strict statutory restrictions, it should be 
abandoned. Last year, when the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure marked up its ISTEA reauthorization bill, the Committee 
included language that would allow the Cuyahoga River Bridge to be 
built using CMAQ funds. This project has broad support and FHWA does 
not object to the language.
  I see my friend from Rhode Island on the floor and urge my colleague 
to accept the House language on this issue when this bill goes to 
Conference.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his statement. If this 
issue is in the House bill it will be before the conference committee.


   metropolitan planning organization status for the lake tahoe basin

  Mr. REID. My colleague, Senator Bryan, and I rise today to describe 
and elaborate on language that was accepted as an amendment to the 
Senate's reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act.
  Last week, our colleagues agreed to create a Metropolitan Planning 
Organization for the Lake Tahoe Basin between Nevada and California. In 
addition to being one of the most beautiful places on Earth, the Lake 
Tahoe Basin is also one of the most environmentally sensitive. Locals 
within the Basin, the Washoe Indian Tribe, and the State Governments of 
Nevada and California have long recognized the unique status of Lake 
Tahoe.
  The Lake is the 3rd deepest in North America and the 10th deepest in 
the World. At its deepest point the Lake is 1,645 feet deep and 
averages about 1000 feet. Stretching 22 miles in length by 12 miles in 
width, the Lake has 72 miles of beautiful shore line that has beckoned 
millions of visitors over the years.
  For years, the many competing interests in the Basin have found ways 
to work together to protect the famed water quality of the Lake. 
Environmentalists, small businessmen, resorts and gaming interests, and 
private property owners have all long recognized that Lake Tahoe is a 
national treasure and must be preserved.
  The partnerships they have developed are unique and have proved the 
notion that it is not necessary to harm the

[[Page S1843]]

economy to improve the environment. This has not been easy. The Basin 
consists of 4 different counties and one city located in two different 
states. There are portions of three separate National Forests in the 
Basin. The largest property owner, by far, is the United States Forest 
Service, which owns over 70 percent of the land. With so many competing 
stakeholders, it is amazing that so much has been accomplished.
  To assist in their efforts, Congress passed Public law 96-551, the 
Lake Tahoe Bi-State Compact, which established a locally-based 
planning process for Nevada and California. This compact recognized the 
unique nature of Tahoe and requires the region to meet or exceed a 
multitude of stringent state and federal transportation and air quality 
requirements.

  Last Summer, President Clinton hosted an environmental forum at Lake 
Tahoe to address the interrelated transportation, forest health, and 
water quality concerns that face the Basin. Transportation was 
identified as one of the key areas where improvements to infrastructure 
could also yield key environmental benefits.
  To enhance the ability of the residents of the Tahoe Basin to solve 
these transportation problems, my colleagues Senator Bryan, Senator 
Boxer and Senator Feinstein and I have asked the other members of the 
Senate to confer Metropolitan Planning Organization status on the 
Basin. Our colleagues have graciously granted our request, so Senator 
Bryan and I wanted to take several minutes to discuss what this status 
does (and does not mean) to Lake Tahoe.
  Is it not true that Metropolitan Planning Organization status for 
Lake Tahoe is merely designed to enhance the ability of the community's 
within the Basin to compete for federal transportation planning funds?
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is correct. As you have mentioned, the Lake 
Tahoe Basin consists of parts of two states, 4 counties, 3 National 
Forests, and one city. However, as the Bi-State Compact recognizes, the 
Basin has unique environmental needs that require the cooperation of 
all people and groups that own or manage property within the Basin.
  The ability to compete for and utilize federal transportation 
planning dollars will allow the Basin to fulfill many of the goals 
identified in the Basin's Environmental Improvement Program.
  Mr. REID. The Forest Service owns over 70 percent of the land within 
the Basin. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the federal land management 
agencies of the Basin have a role in this new process?
  Mr. BRYAN. I agree with the Senator. Our legislation addresses the 
fact that the federal government is the biggest property owner in the 
Basin. As such, there is a need for federal involvement in both the 
planning and program implementation of transportation projects at Lake 
Tahoe. Our amendment gives the Basin access to both planning and 
program implementation funds for programs of federal land management 
agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service.
  President Clinton made it clear last summer that the U.S. federal 
government must fulfill its obligations within the Tahoe Basin. 
Although this amendment does not include a seat on the MPO for the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, this provision would provide a role for 
U.S. DOT to assist in fulfilling these obligations by assisting the 
federal land management agencies in preparation of transportation 
plans.
  Mr. REID. What will be the federal role on the MPO itself?
  Mr. BRYAN. Our legislation makes it clear that there will be a 
representative of a federal land management agency on the Lake Tahoe 
MPO. This is only reasonable.
  Mr. REID. Our Nation's transportation laws and regulations and 
programs can be a bit complicated. What changes does this make to 
existing law or programs?
  Mr. BRYAN. There should not be an impact. This MPO should not affect 
other program aspects under Title 23. The section we have written is 
designed to allow Tahoe to organize for transportation. There is no 
intent to change other policies of the federal transportation program.
  Mr. REID. I thank my colleague.


                 national intermodal set-aside program

  Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to discuss 
with you and my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator 
Landrieu, our proposal to establish a nationally-level set-aside 
program from the federal highway trust fund to help states to finance 
certain types of nationaliy-significant intermodal projects, of which 
Louisiana has several.
  We appreciate your consideration of our proposal, Mr. President, to 
set aside $100 million for the fiscal years 1998-2003 for obligation by 
the Secretary for intermodal projects. We want to continue working 
closely with you and other members on its behalf when the Senate and 
House go to conference on the surface transportation bill.
  Congress acted wisely in the 1991 ISTEA by creating the National 
Highway System, NHS, which brought focus to intermodalism as part of 
the nation's surface transportation policy. In addition to the NHS 
account, funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) may be 
used by the states for intermodal projects. The use of NHS and STP 
funds for intermodal projects are left to the discretion of the states 
and intermodal projects are but one option available to them.
  I also hope that funds authorized for the Trade Corridor and Border 
Crossing Planning and Infrastructure Program in S. 1173 will be 
available for use on intermodal projects in port areas and for 
transportation systems which connect to ports. Equal emphasis needs to 
be given in this program to intermodal projects in states such as 
Louisiana, where the combination of ports, waterways, roads, rail and 
airports constitute some of the finest examples of intermodalism on a 
national and international scale.
  As helpful as these three programs have the potential to be under 
ISTEA II for nationally-significant intermodal projects, more funding 
is needed to help the states build them.
  For example, the New Orleans Regional Intermodal Project brings 
together in a matter of a few square miles major rail, water, air and 
highway transportation centers. This project is designed to increase 
the transportation efficiency of the entire metropolitan area, 
including the Parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, 
and St. Charles.
  The New Orleans Regional Intermodal Project represents a unique 
implementation program focused on closer integration of several 
highway, port, rail, and air facilities in the Earhart corridor, from 
the Tchoupitoulas port complex on the Mississippi River to the new Air/
Cargo facilities at New Orleans International Airport.

  This initiative is as important to the nation as it is to the New 
Orleans metropolitan area. Because of its geographic location, the area 
is the hub for several national cargo transportation systems. This 
relatively small area is the juncture point between several major 
north/south and east/west railroad lines; two major north/south and 
east/west interstate highways; a major international cargo and 
passenger airport; and two of the most significant waterway systems in 
the country, the Mississippi River and the Intracoastal Waterway.
  When one combines the services and impact of the intermodal complexes 
at Baton Rouge and the Port of South of Louisiana at LaPlace, each of 
which should be considered for this type of funding, with those of the 
New Orleans regional complex, then the order of magnitude and impact 
truly is one of international as well as national significance.
  In a similar manner, other Louisiana intermodal projects with 
national significance should be considered. These include: Much-needed 
improvements to Louisiana Highway 1, from the mammoth Port Fourchon 
area on the Gulf of Mexico to U.S. Highway 90, because of the major 
contribution this route is playing in the development of oil and gas 
fields in the Gulf; this intermodal complex is increasing the delivery 
of domestic energy supplies and strengthening national security by 
limiting national dependency on fuel imports; highways, waterways and 
pipelines make Port Fourchon one of the most important intermodal 
complexes in the nation today and Louisiana Highway 1 a major roadway 
which connects the

[[Page S1844]]

Gulf of Mexico to other major intermodal systems via U.S. Highway 90; 
developments in the Central and Northwest Louisiana regions, which 
include the growing highway, port, rail, water and air complexes along 
the Red River, starting at the Caddo-Bossier Port, continuing to the 
Ports of Natchitoches and Alexandria, and finally linking with the 
Mississippi River; this link brings together goods and services from 
the Central and Midwestern United States to the water, rail, air and 
highway systems leading to and from the Mississippi River and its 
internationally-significant intermodal systems; Barksdale Air Force 
Base, located at the juncture of two major interstate systems in the 
Shreveport-Bossier City area of Louisiana, and home of the 8th Air 
Force, together with Ft. Polk, home of the Army's Joint Readiness 
Training Center, located at Leesville, Louisiana, are major military 
installations in the state. It is critical that strategic national 
defense installations such as these have the proper access and 
connections to transportation systems, including roads, rail and 
waterways, to respond effectively in time of need. An intermodal set-
aside at the national level would be another means to help the states 
address the transportation system needs for these military 
installations.

  It is hoped, Mr. President, that the type of fund we envision could 
also be used to provide additional funding for critical projects such 
as extending Interstate 49 in Louisiana, from its current Southern 
terminus at Lafayette to New Orleans.
  An extension of I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans is much-needed 
from a national perspective because of the benefits it would bring by 
linking goods and services from the Central and Midwestern United 
States to the New Orleans region's intermodal complexes.
  As important, the extension of I-49 from Lafayette to New Orleans 
would link the expanding energy industry at Port Fourchon and the trade 
from other ports along that route, such as the Ports of Iberia, West 
St. Mary, and Morgan City, to the New Orleans region's intermodal 
systems. Tying into that system, too, could be trade from the port at 
Abbeville, just south of Lafayette.
  I-49 also connects with Interstate 10, a major interstate corridor 
which runs from Florida to California. In Louisiana, I-10 westbound 
from Lafayette has ports which connect directly or indirectly to it, 
such as the major Port of Lake Charles, and those at Cameron and 
Mermentau.
  The full benefits of these surface transportation systems cannot be 
fully realized without an investment in the roadways and connectors 
that will allow true intermodalism. The Louisiana intermodal complexes 
and systems represent the best opportunity for this nation to leverage 
a small investment in infrastructure to gain major dividends in 
efficiency that will benefit our entire national economy.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, by implementing such a program we will 
enhance our region's national economic competitiveness, especially in 
our natural resource sector which has been the backbone of our economy; 
contribute to the revitalization and growth of both suburban and 
central city business engaged in global trade; provide new 
opportunities for job creation throughout metropolitan and rural areas; 
and promote national efficiency. With hundreds of major navigable 
waterways, ports and rail systems throughout Louisiana, we are favored 
by many in the Midwest and Eastern United States as the gateway to the 
Southern Hemisphere. Louisiana is of vital importance to the United 
States as such a gateway and very supportive of additional federal 
funding to better connect their water, rail and transportation systems 
that are vital to enhancing international trading opportunities for our 
nation.
  While I understand that the managers of S. 1173 will not include 
additional funding amendments in this bill, such as the one Senator 
Breaux and I propose, I hope to work on this proposal with Senate 
leaders during conference with the House to promote intermodalism in 
those places where we can gain the greatest national benefit.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you Senator Breaux and Senator Landrieu for 
bringing this proposal to our attention. Although we continue to face a 
significant challenge in providing funding for the complete range of 
national transportation needs, I will work with you and other Senators 
as this bill progresses to provide funding for those critical areas in 
which we can gain the greatest value for our public investment.


                      marine ferry transportation

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the 
amendment offered by Senator Stevens to promote the use of marine ferry 
and high-speed marine ferry services. This amendment will help promote 
marine ferry transportation, a widely overlooked, but incredibly 
efficient sector of our public transportation system.
  The marine ferry system of the United States is invaluable in meeting 
the transportation needs of our nation. As a Senator from an island 
state, I appreciate the need for passenger/vehicle ferry services. In 
general, marine ferries require minimal costs as compared to the costs 
of new infrastructure such as highways, bridges and tunnels.
  In coastal urban centers, marine ferry service can provide low-cost, 
environmentally friendly transportation to areas suffering from 
congestion. For instance, the cost of additional roadways and bridges 
in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area could be astronomical 
compared to the minimal costs of helping to establish a regular ferry 
route. In addition, in coastal urban centers the reduction of 
automobile use mitigates environmental air quality problems.
  In rural coastal areas, such as the barrier islands of Maine, North 
Carolina, and Florida, marine ferries have been utilized as the sole 
source of transportation to connect coastal communities to the 
mainland. States like North Carolina utilize their state ferry system 
as an integral part of their hurricane disaster planning, when traffic 
can be congested during an evacuation. Ferries were used in the 
aftermath of the earthquakes in northern California to provide 
transportation across San Francisco Bay.
  Marine ferry transportation can also provide benefits to inland 
states with marine barriers such as rivers or lakes. Many states have 
utilized marine ferries as low-cost alternatives to highway bridges or 
to circumvent large inland lakes. Again, this provides the lowest cost 
transportation alternative to the taxpayer.
  In states such as Washington and Alaska, ferry transportation is 
vital and crucial to the population. These states have invested, with 
great success, in state-run marine ferry services, and have far-flung 
populations where highway road service is inefficient or in some cases 
impossible. Other states such as New York, New Jersey, and my own state 
of Hawaii, are exploring incentives to induce private ferry operations 
in order to fulfill certain transportation objectives.
  This year I introduced S. 961, the Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine 
Ferry Act. Senator Stevens' amendment includes many of the provisions 
that were included in S. 941, and they will help us to fulfill our 
Nation's potential for both the continued use of traditional ferry 
services and to help develop potential use of high-speed marine 
technology.
  In the early 1970s, Boeing Marine pioneered the development and 
construction of commercial passenger hydrofoils capable of operating at 
45 knots. Boeing built 25 hydrofoils for high-speed use on the Hong 
Kong-Macau route before licensing production to Kawasaki Heavy 
Industries of Japan in the early 1980s, and by 1989, only one high-
speed marine passenger/vehicle ferry of significant size was in 
operation.
  The international and domestic high-speed marine passenger vessel 
market has recently seen a dramatic expansion, and currently over 60 
high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferries are in service or under 
construction. Fast ferries, until recently, have been primarily used in 
short sea services on protected routes, but recent advances in design 
and materials have allowed for the construction of larger vessels 
capable of being operated on longer open sea routes. These technologies 
are integral to the development of ferry service in the Hawaiian 
islands, where

[[Page S1845]]

we have rougher and more exposed sea routes. New technologies have also 
opened possibilities for high-speed cargo-carrying operations.
  The United States has benefitted from a number of recent high-speed 
projects, and from the establishment of a shipyard specifically 
designed for high-speed marine passenger vessel construction. The 
Maritime Administration's 1996 Outlook for the U.S. Shipbuilding and 
Repair Industry indicates:

       New orders for ferries should also continue to provide work 
     for the second-tier shipyards. The enactment of ISTEA 
     continues to provide a significant boost to new ferry 
     projects. In addition, MARAD has a Title XI application 
     pending for the construction of two passenger/vehicle ferries 
     for a foreign owner, valued at more than $171 million. Demand 
     will come from continued promotion of states of ferries for 
     use in their tourist industries, as well as in 
     transportation/commuting, as an alternative to building 
     infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges. The 
     recent award of a $181 million contract to Todd Seattle for 
     three 2,500-passenger ferries and the solicitation for 
     proposals for two additional 350-passenger ferries by the 
     State of Washington, is an added sign that the ferry industry 
     is strong. On the private sector side, there is a demand for 
     the deployment of high-speed, high-tech ferries in the 
     passenger excursion industry.

  The Stevens amendment will build on previous enactments aimed at 
promoting marine ferry operations. The bill would reauthorize section 
1064 of ISTEA, at levels consistent with past years, to allow state-run 
ferry programs to apply for federal grants for the construction of 
ferries, and/or related ferry infrastructure.
  The Stevens amendment would also require DOT to report on existing 
marine ferry operations and to make recommendations on areas that could 
benefit from future marine ferry operations, and directs DOT to meet 
with relevant state and local municipal planning agencies to discuss 
the marine ferry option to transportation planning. I think that 
municipal planners will be convinced that marine ferries can be the 
lowest cost alternatives available.
  I am happy the amendment has been incorporated in the bill, and thank 
my colleagues for their support of marine ferry operations. For a 
relatively small investment, we can encourage state and private 
operations to address our pressing infrastructure demands.


                        red river trade corridor

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my fellow senator from the State of North 
Dakota and I would like to engage the Ranking Member of the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works in a colloquy regarding the importance 
of the transportation infrastructure of our region and our states to 
interregional, national, and international trade.
  Mr. President, we have followed with interest the development of S. 
1173, the ISTEA II legislation. We have been especially interested in 
Section 1116, which provides planning and border project implementation 
grants to improve the movement of products and at international border 
crossings with Mexico and Canada, and along significant transportation 
trade corridors.
  As you will recall, in 1994, Congress established the Northern Great 
Plains Rural Development Commission to develop a ten-year plan for the 
economic future of our region. One of the priorities of the Commission 
is developing a transportation strategy for the region. One important 
aspect of that strategy is the proposal to designate the Red River 
Trade Corridor--a multi-state corridor that includes Interstate 29 and 
Interstate 35--as an official national trade corridor under Section 
1116.
  We think it is wise to discuss our objective with the Committee so 
that our region is not overlooked when these corridors are selected--or 
in the event that the Committee makes recommendations for recognizing 
specific corridors.
  Our objective is clear: if we in North Dakota and the rest of the 
Northern Great Plains are going to keep our rural communities and 
businesses thriving, we must have the transportation infrastructure 
necessary to reach local, regional, and international markets. We are 
at an important stage in our economic development. We are poised to 
take advantage of the new trade created by NAFTA, which places our 
region of the country within a new era as a geographical crossroads for 
international trade. The importance to the economy of our states cannot 
be overlooked. To take advantage of the benefits that can be derived 
from the changing global economy, our highway transportation 
infrastructure must be capable of serving those international trade and 
transportation needs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and understand his 
concerns. The Committee is aware of the importance of the Northern 
Great Plains states, including North Dakota, in moving traffic from 
north to south, as well as from east to west. The cooperation among the 
states in the region and the work being done with the government of the 
neighboring province of Manitoba will be important in applying for 
grants in the trade corridor program in the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Chairman's 
interest in the Red River Trade Corridor. As you know, I have long 
supported efforts to add value to the agricultural products produced by 
the farmers in my state and within the entire region. However, adding 
value is only one part of the picture. We must also ensure that the 
products can get to market, especially in light of the current era of 
international trade and consumer demand for fresher and higher-quality 
products. Giving our region the ability to develop a transportation 
infrastructure to improve the movement of products to market in a 
timely fashion, and to link infrastructure investment to international 
trade, is essential in order for our region to bring new opportunities 
to our farmers and rural communities.
  If North Dakota and the region are to continue to benefit from new 
export opportunities, such as those offered by NAFTA, we must have the 
transportation infrastructure to deliver perishable, high-quality 
products.
  Simply put, our goal is to make truck transportation across the 
United States faster, easier, and more cost-effective. But federal 
support for states and communities along the Red River Trade Corridor 
is essential to improve the infrastructure of the corridor and to 
streamline traffic across the United States and from the Canadian and 
Mexican borders.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from North Dakota accurately notes the 
important link between export opportunities and an adequate 
transportation infrastructure. The development of the transportation 
infrastructure is crucial to ensure that export products from not only 
the Northern Great Plains region but also the nation--and our 
neighboring countries--are able to reach their destinations in an 
efficient manner.
  Mr. CONRAD. We appreciate the interest of the Ranking Member in our 
request to provide an official designation to the Red River Trade 
Corridor. We look forward to working with them on this designation, 
which is critical to the future of our state and the Northern Great 
Plains region.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have before the Senate one of the most 
important pieces of legislation that the Senate will consider this 
year, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998, the 
so-called ISTEA II bill. The bill touches every American, from Vermont 
to Florida, from Washington State to Washington D.C. ISTEA II, with its 
transit and safety subtitles, will spend more than $215 billion over 
six years on our nation's highways, transit systems, and safety 
programs.
  That is a lot of money, but it is sorely needed. The United States 
has the largest transportation system in the world--170,000 miles of 
National Highway System routes, 900,000 miles of other Federal-aid 
roads, and 3.7 million miles of public roads. Prior to 1991, our 
national priority had been on building the national Interstate system 
which had been under construction since 1957. Six years ago, thanks to 
the leadership of Senators Moynihan and Chafee, this nation made a 
fundamental change in the way that it allocates its public investment 
in transportation. That change was based on the premises that local 
people understand local needs, that funding should be flexible, and 
that transportation should contribute to meeting national environmental 
and public health goals. In my estimation, ISTEA has been a resounding 
success.
  The bill before the Senate will come to be known as ISTEA II. I want 
to commend the managers of the bill,

[[Page S1846]]

Senators Chafee and Baucus, for crafting a landmark piece of 
legislation. This bill is good for the nation and good for my state of 
Vermont. It maintains and enhances our transportation commitments in 
ways that Vermonters will be proud of.
  First of all, the bill maintains its flexibility. Vermont will retain 
full authority, in partnership with local governments, to decide an 
appropriate level of investment in roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and 
transit. One of the most important additions to this bill is a 
provision that will allow Vermont to spend its highway money on Amtrak 
capital improvements. Our small state has two successful Amtrak trains, 
both of which operate with assistance from the state. If this provision 
survives the conference committee with the House of Representatives, 
Vermont Amtrak service can be expanded to include even more 
communities. In western Vermont, our Ethan Allen train could be 
expanded to serve Bennington, Rutland, Middlebury, and Burlington.
  The second goal that this bill will accomplish is that it strengthens 
ISTEA's commitment to the environment. There is increased funding for 
congestion mitigation, a new wetlands restoration pilot program, 
continued funding for recreational trails, and a greater than 25% 
increase in funds for bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.
  Finally, this bill will bring more resources to Vermont. It will give 
Vermont a major boost in highway and transit funding, so we can better 
maintain our existing roads. We need the funds. For example 41% of 
Vermont's bridges are structurally deficient, the 11th worst rate in 
the nation. Today we get about $78 million in federal highway funds. 
Under the bill which we will pass today, Vermont will annually receive 
$118 million on average for the next six years.
  Operating assistance for transit will increase from about $1.5 
million annually to $1.8 million annually. A new $750 million trade 
corridor and border infrastructure program will result in enhancements 
at Vermont's border with Canada. A big reason for the increase for 
Vermont's funds is because, for the first time since 1993, every cent 
of the gasoline tax will be spent on roads. For the last six years, 4.3 
cents of the gas tax have been dedicated to reduce the federal deficit. 
But with the federal budget in balance for the first time in 30 years, 
we can now spend those funds on badly needed transportation 
infrastructure.
  We live in a competitive world, Mr. President. Many of our economic 
competitors pay their workforce much less than comparable workers here 
in the United States. Yet we often not only compete with the world, but 
we lead it in many industries. One of the big reasons why we compete 
and win is because we have a superior transportation infrastructure. 
Mr. President, this bill will modernize our infrastructure, while 
protecting the environment and giving Vermonters unprecedented choice 
in how to spend federal funds. I am proud to vote for the bill, and I 
hope that the Senate preserves as much of it as possible in conference.


             MON VALLEY-FAYETTE EXPRESSWAY/SOUTHERN BELTWAY

  Mr. SPECTER. Since the mid-1980's, I have worked with elected 
officials from Allegheny, Washington, and Fayette Counties, the 
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and the Mon Valley Progress Council 
to obtain funds for the Mon Valley-Fayette Expressway and Southern 
Beltway project, which has tremendous economic development potential 
from West Virginia into Pittsburgh and to the Pittsburgh International 
Airport. The seven segments of the Expressway and the Beltway will cost 
$2.5 billion to complete ($1.8 billion Mon Valley-Fayette, $700 million 
Southern Beltway) and will include 92.5 miles of new toll road in the 
Pittsburgh region.
  One of the more notable aspects of this project is that the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has committed to providing $2 billion, or 
80 percent, of the $2.5 billion, which is highly commendable and 
unusual.
  While I recognize that you do not wish to earmark projects in the 
pending bill, or I would have proposed such an amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
I would welcome your assurance that in conference you will keep this 
project in mind as an example of a project that merits consideration.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I want to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania that I am 
well aware of this project and his support for it. It certainly is 
commendable when a State will put up 80 percent of any highway project 
and I thank the Senator for his input, which will be helpful as we 
proceed to a conference with the House.


         Increasing the Allocations to Indian Reservation Roads

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, most Indians today still live in 
poverty. This is reflected in a per capita income figure that is one-
sixth to one-fifth the national average for the 10 largest Indian 
reservations. In simplest terms, most reservation Indians have one 
dollar of income for every five dollars of income available to average 
Americans.
  On the Papago reservation in Arizona, the per capita income is $3,113 
compared to $18,325 for all Americans (1990 Census). At Zuni Pueblo, 
the per capita income is $3,904 and at that Navajo reservation it is 
$3,735. These figures have changed only slightly since the 1990 Census.
  Fifty-one percent of American Indians residing on reservations live 
below the poverty line; and unemployment averages 37%.
  ISTEA has already helped tremendously to increase the accessibility 
of Indian people, but much remains to be done.
  We can help accelerate the movement of Indian people into mainstream 
economic activities by improving their accessibility to better markets 
and better tourism opportunities.
  ISTEA II, S. 1173, now authorizes a grand total of $173 billion for 
all programs over the six year life of the bill. This is a nominal 
increase of about 43 percent.
  As passed by the Senate, S. 1173 funds the Indian Reservations Roads 
Program at $200 million for 1998 and $250 million per year for each of 
the following five years of the bill, from 1999 through 2003.
  I am pleased that the Committee on Environment and Public Works has 
included $9 million annually (within the total $250 million) to allot 
to the repair and construction of Indian bridges.
  The Domenici-Inouye-Bingaman amendment, as accepted by the Committee 
will add a total of $250 million over five years.
  Our amendment brings the six year total IRR funds up to $1.450 
billion from the current $1.200 billion prior to the Domenici 
amendment.
  While our original IRR bill, S. 437, included road maintenance as an 
eligible activity, this amendment does not include road maintenance. We 
expect the BIA to continue to fund its road maintenance program, 
hopefully at higher levels than $25 million per year.
  The Indian Reservation Road Program is directed to about 22,000 miles 
of BIA roads serving Indian lands. There is a total road mileage, 
counting BIA, state, federal, tribal, and county roads, of about 50,000 
miles on our nation's Indian lands. The BIA is directly responsible for 
about 44% of this total road system serving Indian tribes. About 5% are 
tribal roads and the other half are other federal roads and state and 
county roads.
  Within the BIA road system, 22,000 miles of roads, only 11% of the 
paved roads are rated as being in good condition. Of the unpaved roads, 
90% are known to be in poor condition. None of the BIA unpaved roads 
are rated as being in good condition.
  Since 1982, the Highway Trust Fund has been the primary source of 
funds for the design and construction of BIA roads serving Indian 
tribes. In the mid-1980's this funding was about $100 million per year; 
it fell to about $80 million per year in the late-1980's; and with the 
advent of ISTEA I, Indian Reservation Roads have been funded at $191 
million per year.
  Now that Welfare Reform is a reality, it is more imperative than ever 
to help create Indian reservation-based employment opportunities. ISTEA 
funding has become the primary source of road planning and construction 
in Indian Country.
  In addition to direct employment opportunities, ISTEA funds provide 
an essential component of community infrastructure development. As 
observed in the Committee Report on S. 1173:

       Transportation provides the links between businesses, 
     industries and consumers.

[[Page S1847]]

      The national economic benefits of a healthy and reliable 
     Federal investment in transportation infrastructure are well 
     documented.

  The ability of new businesses to arise in Indian Country is seriously 
hindered by the current state of their road system. Health and 
education indicators are also well below national averages.
  Today's Senate action to increase the Indian Reservation Road program 
by $50 million per year will add significantly to improving the 
accessibility of Indian reservations to the benefits of our national 
economy.
  On the Navajo reservation, annual funding is likely to increase from 
about $55 million to over $65 million. On Pueblo lands in New Mexico, 
funding will increase from about $12 million to $15 million.
  I am pleased that the full Senate preserved this important funding 
increase for Indian reservation roads to $250 million per year, from 
$200 million per year, as originally proposed by the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and from $191 million per year under current 
law.
  Another significant change in this legislation is the national 
priority system for Indian reservation bridges. Rather than allocate a 
small percentage of bridge funds from each of the fifty states for use 
within those states, we now have a single national Indian bridge 
program that will target the most deficient bridges for early repair or 
replacement.
  I thank Chairman Chafee and Ranking Member Baucus for their 
assistance in adding significant funding for the Indian Reservation 
Road Program and creating a simpler Indian bridge program.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wish to salute my distinguished 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman 
Chafee of Rhode Island, Senator Baucus of Montana, and Senator Warner 
of Virginia, for their leadership and vision in crafting ISTEA II. I 
also wish to salute my fellow New Yorker, Senator D'Amato and Senator 
Sarbanes of Maryland, for their outstanding work on the transit title 
of this bill and the careful compromise they were able to fashion. 
Finally, I congratulate Senator Roth of Delaware, for all his skill on 
crafting the tax title to ISTEA II.
  In 1991, Congress developed the principles for the first highway bill 
to mark the post-Interstate era. That previous era had seen development 
of a nationwide, multi-lane, limited access highway system, as first 
envisioned at the General Motors Futurama exhibit at the 1939 World's 
Fair, and then funded by a dedicated tax proposed by President 
Eisenhower and approved by Congress in 1956.
  Those principles were designed to address the fundamental imbalance 
in national transportation investment, and in so doing, promote 
intermodalism, improve mobility and access to jobs, protect the 
environment, increase participation by local communities, and enhance 
transportation safety.
  ISTEA spurred the Federal government and the States to invest their 
transportation dollars in whatever modes were most efficient for moving 
people and goods and to solicit the input of local communities in 
planning those investments. The result was a dramatic increase in 
investment in maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roads and 
bridges, in mass transit, and in creative approaches to our 
transportation needs, from bicycle and pedestrian paths to ferry boats.
  I am proud to see that the bill we will pass today is true to those 
principles, retaining ISTEA I's major environmental programs such as 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program and the 
Transportation Enhancements Program, as well as creating a new 
innovative finance program that will help fund projects across the 
nation. This bill is good for New York, providing the State with over 
$14 billion in highway and transit funds over the next six years.
  I also salute the EPW Committee for including a program to develop 
magnetic levitation projects in this country. Maglev was first 
conceived in 1960 by a young Brookhaven scientist, James Powell, as he 
sat mired in traffic on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. But it is the 
Germans and Japanese who are building it. It promises to be the most 
important development in transportation technology since the airplane 
and we must not be left behind.
  I want to close with a word about mass transit. One of the most 
important things that ISTEA I accomplished was to begin the work of 
repairing the damage done to our cities by the Interstate Highway 
System. American cities were cruelly split, their character and 
geography changed forever, with interstate highways running through 
once-thriving working class neighborhoods from Newark to Detroit to 
Miami. Homes and jobs were dispersed to the outlying suburbs and 
beyond. The physical and economic damage is still with us today.
  But our cities have used ISTEA funds to repair the damage where they 
could, using funds for transit--even bike and pedestrian paths--instead 
of more road building. Under the flexibility granted to them under 
ISTEA I, States transferred $3.6 billion from highways to transit, 
spurring improvements in transit systems all across the country.
  This bill will continue a strong investment in transit, and improve 
and expand transit commuting benefits for employees. Mass transit is 
vital to the economic health of our cities, which remain the primary 
generators of wealth in the United States. Mass transit enables our 
cities to thrive by retaining their physical density, richness, and 
character. Without mass transit, urban life and culture disperse and 
eventually disappear, leaving all Americans poorer indeed.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of S. 
1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I support 
this bill because of its strategic importance to Maryland's economy and 
the national economy.
  To put it simply Mr. President, Maryland will receive more dollars 
for highways under this bill than it does now. Under this legislation, 
Maryland can expect to receive almost $400 million per year for its 
highway system and roughly $100 million for its transit needs.
  That means better highways, byways, trains and buses for Marylanders.
  Maryland's interstate highways are among the busiest in the nation. 
Funding under this bill will help maintain our highways and help 
relieve the congestion that so many of our commuters face each day.
  Highways and transit systems are the arteries for our economy. This 
legislation will help increase the capacity of our highways and transit 
systems, and will promote economic growth and job creation.
  This bill also means more money for transit, to keep our buses, 
trains and subways in top form.
  For Maryland, this means that our MARC trains, the Baltimore Metro, 
as well as our rural and suburban bus systems such as Montgomery 
County's Ride-On system will continue to receive the help they need to 
buy new equipment and expand capacity.
  The ISTEA bill also maintains the important programs for our 
environment to reduce congestion and improve air quality.
  It funds the development and construction of a state of the art 
Maglev system. Maryland is one of the states that has a Maglev project 
on the drawing board and could receive federal assistance to build the 
nation's first Maglev system. A Maglev line between Baltimore and 
Washington would reduce commuting time to less than 20 minutes between 
the two cities.
  While I am pleased at the funding for highways, transit, 
environmental programs and Maglev, I am disappointed that this bill 
does not provide full federal funding for the replacement of the 
Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
  The bill provides $900 million to replace the Wilson Bridge. This is 
substantially higher than the $400 million that was proposed by the 
U.S. Department of Transportation.
  In my opinion, $900 million is a down payment. I am hopeful that 
funding and additional financing measures can be included as the 
legislation proceeds.
  Maryland and Virginia cannot shoulder a majority of the cost for 
replacement of the Wilson Bridge. It is the responsibility of the 
federal government, not the states, to construct a suitable alternative 
to the current bridge. It is my hope that this will be resolved in 
conference with the House.
  Despite my concerns over the Wilson Bridge, I believe this 
legislation will make major improvements to our nation's 
infrastructure, and Maryland's

[[Page S1848]]

economy. That is why I support this legislation.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Chafee, the ranking member, 
Mr. Baucus, and the Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. 
Warner, for their skill and their hard work in moving this important 
legislation through the Senate.
  Senator Chafee has been most courteous in his willingness to listen 
to the concerns of the donor states during the course of this debate. 
His efforts to assist us are sincerely appreciated. Mr. Warner 
introduced the original bill that would ensure that donor states are 
protected from the devastating rates of return on their allocations 
that some of us have seen in the past. His determination and his 
diligence in this have also been noticed and are appreciated.
  I will vote for this measure, but I do so reluctantly. The reason for 
my dissatisfaction is that under it, South Carolina remains a donor 
State and would receive only about 90% of its share of contributions 
back from the program. Many of my colleagues may wonder at the 
intensity with which we who represent so-called ``donor states'' 
approach this issue. South Carolina has sent, every year since the 
program began in 1956, more money to fund the highway needs of other 
states than have been sent back to us. The total loss, in the case of 
South Carolina, now stands at over $1 billion and will continue to 
rise. At first, this disparity was justifiable to build the Interstate 
Highway System across the nation, and our constituents accepted this 
willingly. There was always the expectation that when this good purpose 
was acheived, we would then be assisted with our own road needs. After 
all, we had to postpone tending to our own infrastructure while the 
Federal Government used the gasoline tax for priorities elsewhere.
  However, every six years, with each subsequent highway bill, new 
justifications are brought forth as to why the needs of other states 
are greater than ours. Those justifications range from air pollution 
and aged infrastructure in the Northeast to the completion of the 
Appalachian Highway System. South Carolina has some roads in the 
Appalachian Highway System, but we do not consider those roads to be 
any more or less a priority over needs of others in the rest of our 
State simply because of that status. We never seem to receive the 
consideration we deserve.
  All that we ask is that the system be fair. As it happens, not only 
is fairness in returning to States the same percent as they put into 
the fund the right thing to do, it is the most efficient system for 
financing our infrastructure. My colleagues may remember that in the 
ISTEA bill of 1991, we requested a study by the General Accounting 
Office on how we should distribute highway funds. The GAO issued that 
report in November 1995. Its major conclusion was that the amount of 
gas taxes paid locally is one of the most accurate indicators of where 
transportation is needed. This makes sense, of course. People should be 
able to expect the tax they pay to go to maintain the roads they are 
driving on. Unfortunately, this sensible proposal has been ignored and 
funds under this bill would be distributed for various political 
reasons and, apparently, for the main reason that this is the way we 
have always done it.
  I support this bill as a first step in finally achieving fairness. It 
is my hope that our colleagues in the House and our colleagues who will 
sit on the Conference Committee can achieve greater equity.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the legislation to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. In 1991, the Congress 
passed the first ISTEA bill. Upon its enactment, ISTEA revolutionized 
transportation funding in the United States. Prior to ISTEA, states 
like Ohio gave substantially more in support of the national highway 
system than we received in return. While we understood that the 
completion of the national highway system was a goal worthy of support, 
in 1991 that system was 95% complete. It was time to shift our 
priorities and our resources accordingly. As one of the largest of 
these so-called ``donor states,'' I worked with my colleagues to enact 
a law that provided a better return on our transportation dollars, 
allowed flexibility for states and localities in determining 
transportation spending priorities, and that provided a record amount 
of funding for alternatives to highway transportation like transit, 
light rail, and pedestrian walkways.
  The second step in this new transportation journey, ISTEA II reduces 
further the inequitable relationship between donor and donee states, 
streamlines programs to improve their efficiency, and increases the 
flexibility of states and localities in spending highway funds for 
alternate modes of transportation. Mr. President, the bill provides a 
record return for donor states, ensuring that Ohio and all donor states 
realize returns of 91 cents on every transportation dollar contributed 
to the Highway Trust Fund. For Ohio, that translates to $5.2 billion 
over six years, an average of $868.9 million a year. Nationally, ISTEA 
II authorizes the spending of $151.4 billion over six years, averaging 
$25.2 billion a year.
  In addition to these formula funds, Ohio will receive $65 million per 
year over five years for the High Density Transportation Program, the 
Appalachian Development Highway System Program, and other programs 
important to our state.
  The bill provides $41.3 billion for transit over five years, 
including $500 million for rural transit, $100 million for welfare to 
work funding and other programs essential to the efficient operation of 
urban and rural transit systems. In total, ISTEA II provides an 
increase in transit funding of $9.8 billion.
  During ISTEA II's consideration, I cosponsored amendments that reduce 
the legal level of intoxication to .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) and 
that prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages in automobiles. 
Their successful passage and implementation will assist law enforcement 
officials in reducing the all too real threat that drunk drivers pose 
to our families and friends. Mr. President, if one tragedy like those 
that have affected so many of us can be avoided, I believe these laws 
will have served their purpose.
  In addition, I maintained my strong support for the enhancements 
provisions of this law. These enhancements provide states with much 
needed funds for historic preservation, bicycle trails, and pedestrian 
walkways. I cosponsored an amendment to provide $25 million a year for 
six years in annual appropriations for the preservation of historic 
covered bridges. Ohio has the second highest number of covered bridges 
in the United States. Of the 144 covered bridges in Ohio, 126 of these 
will be eligible for this funding.
  ISTEA II continues other important programs like the Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprise (DBE) program, which provides opportunities for 
women and minority owned businesses to participate in the highway 
construction industry. In 1996, businesses owned by non-minority women 
in Ohio received $79.5 million and minority-owned Ohio firms received 
$74.4 million, representing 22.7% of the total contracting dollars 
awarded in Ohio. The DBE program enhances opportunities for all Ohioans 
and I am proud to lend my strong support.
  Mr. President, an ancient Chinese proverb states that a journey of a 
thousand miles must begin with a single step. In the case of ISTEA II, 
the second step is just as important. ISTEA II is the logical next step 
in furthering our nation's transportation interests and priorities.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bill is going to help the State of 
Michigan address crucial transportation needs. Our highway 
infrastructure and our transit systems desperately require the 
increased funding that this bill promises to deliver. We should 
celebrate that Congress is finally spending all or nearly all the gas 
tax money put into the Highway Trust Fund on transportation. This means 
somewhere between $250 million to $300 million more for Michigan.
  However, this bill is a complex tangle of programs and funding. When 
the bill's managers sought to summarily add roughly $26 billion in new 
funding to the reported bill without sharing much information about how 
this would impact Michigan or the other donor states (states which pay 
more into the Highway Trust Fund than they receive out of it), I 
objected. As a

[[Page S1849]]

Senator from a historical donor state, I saw no reason to rush to send 
more of Michigan's gas taxes out to other states. Then, when the 
Federal Highway Administration provided a chart showing Michigan's 
share of this new money was actually lower than our share in the 
reported bill, my objection was justified.
  I and other donor state Senators met with the bill managers to 
encourage them to accept changes to the bill that would improve our 
return on taxes sent to the Trust Fund. We argued for equity and 
fairness. But, because of the way these bills are constructed, it is 
hard for any state to improve its standing without other states losing.
  Then, the Majority Leader, as is his right and responsibility, sought 
unanimous consent to override germaneness requirements in order to 
adopt the tax and transit titles to the bill. I objected because I did 
not feel that Michigan had yet been adequately treated. We were 
certainly not at or above the so-called ``91% guaranteed'' return 
level, according to Federal Highway Administration charts. My objection 
slowed the bill down a little, but it gave me and other Senators, 
including Senator Abraham, the time to work with the bill managers to 
fashion a more equitable bill.
  The bill managers agreed to some further assistance for seven donor 
states, including Michigan, which we accepted and appreciated. And, I 
pushed a little more to get Michigan eligible for the new pot of money 
made available for the ``high-density transportation program.'' These 
two efforts now should add about $20 million annually to our average 
annual expected allocation to about $842 million over the next six 
years.
  That is the good news. More of the gas tax money being collected will 
be returning to the states for transportation purposes. Unfortunately, 
though more is being distributed, Michigan's return is not likely to 
improve by more than a few pennies on the gas tax dollar. In the last 
year of ISTEA, Michigan sent $631 million to the Highway Trust Fund 
account and got back $605 million. Under ISTEA II (average), Michigan 
will send $932 million to the Highway Trust Fund and receive back $842 
million. So, although the overall pie has been increased by 39%, 
Michigan's slice has only increased by about 34%.
  Mr. President, I am voting for this bill because it takes a few small 
steps on the long road toward fairness for Michigan. We fought hard for 
those steps. But, while Michigan is getting considerably more money, it 
will contribute more still into the Highway Trust Fund, leaving 
Michigan in a significant ``donor state'' status. I hope my colleagues 
in the House will be successful in their upcoming battle.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I congratulate my 
distinguished colleagues who have managed this bill, with special 
appreciation to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Warner, Senator 
D'Amato, and others. But in the final analysis, I feel constrained to 
vote against the bill because it reduces the share of federal highway 
funds for my State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the 
formula. I will vote against the bill with reluctance, but I feel it 
important to register my disagreement, as will my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Santorum, with the hope that these disparities will 
be improved in conference.
  While opposing the bill for specific reasons, which I shall 
enumerate, there are many portions of the bill which I believe are very 
sound indeed as I will describe shortly.
  When one thinks of roads, highways, and bridges, one thinks of 
Pennsylvania. There are records of a public road in Philadelphia County 
dating back to 1696. Inspired by George Washington's own surveys as a 
means for western movement, one of the oldest highways in the nation is 
now U.S. Route 40 (the National Road), which passes through Somerset, 
Fayette, and Washington counties and was built between 1811 and 1818. 
And, the first privately built toll road, the Lancaster Pike, was 
constructed from 1792 to 1794.
  Now, as Pennsylvania prepares to enter the 21st Century, this 
legislation is of critical importance to the Commonwealth because it 
now has nearly 119,000 miles of public highways, with 27,183 miles 
eligible for federal highway funding and over 23,000 bridges over 20 
feet in length which are eligible for federal rehabilitation and 
replacement funds (and of which 40 percent are classified as 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete based on federal bridge 
criteria).
  There is much that is worthwhile in the ISTEA bill being considered 
by the Senate, including record levels of spending on highways and mass 
transit. Further, the bill contains funding for programs I support, 
such as the development of magnetic levitation transportation systems, 
innovative bridge research and development, and intelligent 
transportation systems.
  Nonetheless, I am greatly troubled that the pending bill would reduce 
Pennsylvania's share of the total highway formula from the 4.32 percent 
share under the original ISTEA law (FY92-97) to 3.79 percent. In actual 
dollars, Pennsylvania averaged $890 million annually through the 
original ISTEA law (including earmarked projects), whereas the 
Environment and Public Works Committee reported bill only provided 
Pennsylvania with an annual average from FY98-2003 of $836 million, an 
average reduction of federal spending of $53 million, making my State 
one of only two States to lose funds under the bill's new formula 
(Massachusetts being the other). Further, according to the Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation, and Secretary Brad Mallory, with whom I 
have discussed the pending legislation, S. 1173 puts Pennsylvania at a 
disadvantage because it folds the federal bridge program into a larger 
funding scheme and will result in less funding for rehabilitating our 
more than 23,000 bridges.
  At a time when my travels throughout the Commonwealth suggest that 
there has never been a greater need to invest in Pennsylvania's roads, 
highways, and bridges this bill would undermine our ability to meet 
pressing needs in the 67 counties which comprise the Keystone State.
  During the last few months, as the ISTEA bill was drafted, considered 
in Committee, and brought to the floor, much has been made about 
``donor'' States, ``donee'' States, and concepts such as ``minimum 
allocation.'' Senators from States which have felt aggrieved under 
previous formula allocations have instituted regional warfare and 
sought to prevent States such as Pennsylvania from retaining their 
share of spending from the Highway Trust Fund.
  While I am sympathetic to any Senator's wish to maximize federal 
spending in his or her State, it is not logical to presume that there 
must be percentage equities involved in our nation's infrastructure 
spending. In our federal system, and with such a diverse nation, there 
will always be differences in how much the government provides. In 
Pennsylvania, we are fortunate not to have the kind of earthquakes 
which rock California and necessitate billions in Federal disaster 
assistance. Similarly, we do not begrudge the millions spent by the 
Federal government on Florida's efforts to restore the Everglades, or 
the federal tax credits which are designed to stimulate oil and gas 
production in Oklahoma and Texas.

  As I noted in my letters with Senator Santorum to Chairman Chafee, 
Chairman Warner, and Senator Baucus dated September 12, 1997, 
Pennsylvania's contribution to the Nation is often through its roads 
and highways, which serve a vital role in interstate commerce, 
connecting East and West, as well as North and South. For economic, 
environmental, and safety reasons, there is a tremendous need to 
rehabilitate Pennsylvania's highway system, and I am deeply concerned 
that the funding level envisioned in this bill is not adequate to the 
task.
  Since the bill has been pending, it has been improved to some degree 
by the adoption of provisions designed to increase spending from the 
Highway Trust Fund. Initiated by the Byrd-Gramm amendment, which I 
cosponsored last Fall, this bipartisan effort to raise the highway 
funding levels in this bill met with some success. Particularly helpful 
was that the Byrd-Gramm amendment sought to increase funding for 
continued work on the Appalachian Regional Highway System, where 
Pennsylvania has the most miles of unfinished roads of any State 
included in the 13-State Appalachian region.

[[Page S1850]]

  On paper, the pending bill as amended by Senator Chafee's amendment 
suggests that Pennsylvania would receive an average of $955 million 
annually in highway apportionments, up from the $836 million figure in 
the version of the ISTEA bill reported out of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. However, the funds added by the Chafee 
amendment (based on the Byrd-Gramm amendment) are all dependent on how 
high an obligation ceiling is set each year by the Appropriations 
Committee. If the obligation ceiling on spending is not set high enough 
in the annual Transportation Appropriations bill, the figures 
anticipated by the Chafee bill will not materialize and Pennsylvania 
will be hardpressed to match the annual receipts from the original 
ISTEA formula.
  I am hopeful that in conference, where we have Chairman Bud Shuster 
from Pennsylvania, the chair of the House authorizing committee, the 
formula allocation will be made more equitable for Pennsylvania. But in 
the interim, I believe that my vote necessarily should be cast against 
this bill.
  Mr. President, while I have specified portions of the legislation 
that I am opposed to, I do want to acknowledge the significant 
increases for mass transportation where, through the leadership of 
Chairman D'Amato of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, 
some $5 billion has been added to the $36 billion already in the bill, 
which will facilitate to a number of very, very important mass transit 
projects.
  Because this is a significant bill with many aspects worth commenting 
on, I wish to note a few of its highlights. First, I am very pleased 
that Chairman D'Amato has shown such leadership in crafting a $41 
billion reauthorization of federal transit programs, including $17 
billion for discretionary grants overall of which nearly $8 billion 
will be for New Starts such as the Schuylkill Valley Metro from 
Philadelphia to Reading, the rehabilitation of the light rail system in 
Allegheny County, and possibly a light rail system in the Harrisburg-
Carlisle area.
  As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and as 
the co-chair of the Senate Transit Coalition, I have worked hard for 
several years to increase funding on mass transit. Last July, I 
introduced my own transit reauthorization bill (S. 764), the Mass 
Transit Amendments Act of 1997, with Senators Santorum and Lautenberg 
to give the Banking Committee some idea of the bipartisan consensus for 
increased transit spending. Accordingly, I am very pleased that the 
Banking Committee title represents real increases in transit spending, 
particularly now that a bipartisan group of Senators succeeded in 
obtaining the additional $5 billion in negotiations with the Leadership 
and Budget Committee Chairman Domenici. Once the $24 billion was added 
for highways, it was imperative to increase transit's share as well, 
and I was pleased to join Senator D'Amato, Senator Santorum, and 21 
other Senators in a letter dated February 24 to the Republican and 
Democratic Leaders in which we called for the historic balance between 
highway and transit spending to be observed.

  I am pleased that the Senate accepted by voice vote 2 days ago my 
amendment to establish a Reverse Commute Program as a discretionary 
grant administered by the Federal Transit Administration. Recently, I 
visited the Bala Cynwyd station, which would serve a proposed 62-mile 
light rail system running from the center of Philadelphia to Reading, 
PA, known as the Schuylkill Valley Metro. This project exemplifies the 
type of reverse commute system that is very important because it can 
take people who need jobs from the inner city to the suburbs where 
employers are in need of employees.
  I had first proposed a Reverse Commute Program in S. 764 and believed 
that it was a worthwhile addition to the Banking Committee bill. My 
amendment, offered with Senators Santorum, Moseley-Braun and D'Amato, 
authorized this new $100 million/year program and increased from $100 
million to $150 million the authorization for the new access to jobs/
welfare to work program in the bill. The Reverse Commute Program is 
designed to facilitate access to suburban job opportunities for 
residents of cities, small towns, and rural areas. That is where mass 
transit can be most effective and where there is a great need for the 
federal government to stimulate the transportation marketplace. I am 
hopeful that this program will be preserved in conference and look 
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the House accepts 
it.
  The transit provisions also include a fix in the formula by which the 
fixed guideway modernization funds are allocated, so that Pittsburgh's 
system gets an incremental adjustment it has sought since the 1991 
ISTEA law was enacted.
  I am also pleased to note that this bill contains the text of 
legislation which Senator Moynihan and I have cosponsored which will 
provide funding for the development of magnetic levitation, maglev, 
which has enormous potential to benefit the United States.
  Recently, I visited a maglev trial run in Germany on a train which 
traveled about 250 miles an hour, a really exhilarating experience. 
Maglev could provide transportation, nonstop, from Philadelphia to 
Pittsburgh in 1 hour 30 minutes. In 2 hours 7 minutes, the train could 
go from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and could make intermediate stops at 
Lancaster, Harrisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, Greensburg, and then a final 
destination in Pittsburgh, with enormous economic development for those 
communities. With a slightly increased timespan, it could go to the 
State College and Lewistown as well.
  The cost of maglev, as represented to me, is about $20 million a 
mile, so a 300-mile run, approximately, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh 
could be constructed at a cost of some $6 billion, which is not out of 
line when you consider the Los Angeles subway system is receiving a 
Federal allocation of some $3.1 billion of its $6 billion total cost. 
If we are to have economic expansion in the future, we do need to take 
care of the infrastructure. It ought to be noted that there are 
adequate funds to provide for this kind of funding in the highway trust 
fund, which has as its purpose highways, bridges and mass transit, to 
be used for that instead of being integrated into the overall budget to 
make the deficit look less problemsome.
  I have worked with MAGLEV, Inc. in Pittsburgh since the mid-1980's to 
obtain federal support for that company's effort to research and 
develop a maglev system in Pennsylvania. Now, we are at the brink of a 
maglev age, I believe, with MAGLEV, Inc. looking into a 60-mile route 
from Greensburg, Pennsylvania through Pittsburgh to the International 
Airport as its first segment at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion.
  Not only does maglev have the chance to revolutionize travel, it 
would mean billions of dollars in steel and construction materials and 
thousands of jobs for America's steelworkers and others who would 
fabricate the steel and concrete guideways.
  This bill provides a total of $30 million in contract authority in 
FY99 and FY2000 for capital assistance for development of a maglev 
system selected after a careful review by the Transportation Secretary, 
and more than $900 million in authorizations of appropriations in the 
outyears. While I would have preferred more contract authority, given 
the difficulties of obtaining substantial appropriations, it is 
important that this transportation bill recognize that the future of 
transportation may well be maglev and it merits an investment at this 
time. This bill, therefore, represents a real breakthrough for the 
efforts of MAGLEV, Inc. in Pittsburgh and others who support this new 
technology.
  I am pleased to note that the Senate accepted by voice vote my 
amendment, cosponsored by Senators Moynihan and Santorum, to extend 
eligibility for federal funding assistance to the pre-construction 
planning activities associated with maglev projects in Pennsylvania and 
elsewhere. I intend to fight to retain this amendment in conference 
with the House of Representatives and to work with the Secretary of 
Transportation to ensure that these funds are made available 
expeditiously to qualified entities, such as Pittsburgh's MAGLEV, Inc., 
which are well on their way to bringing this technology from the 
drawing boards to reality.
  It is also significant that the ISTEA bill includes a $100 million 
program for

[[Page S1851]]

innovative bridge research and construction, which I sought with my 
colleagues on the Senate Steel Caucus in a letter to Chairman Chafee 
dated July 25, 1997. Our nation's bridges are rapidly deteriorating, 
presenting serious safety concerns to the traveling public and forcing 
restrictions on bridges unable to accommodate heavy vehicles. The need 
to invest more heavily in bridge infrastructure is clear, and this 
program will fund basic and applied research designed to develop 
innovative, cost-effective steel bridge applications to improve 
lifespan and performance, as well as fund field testing of this 
research.
  As we consider the ISTEA II bill, I remain convinced that Congress 
needs to do more to spend the funds which have accumulated and will 
continue to accumulate in the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit 
Account. In 1991, during consideration of the original ISTEA bill, I 
offered an amendment to take the transportation trust funds off-budget 
for the purpose of ensuring that all federal gas tax receipts are spent 
on transportation infrastructure and not used to mask the true size of 
the deficit. In June, 1991, my amendment was defeated by a 29-69 vote, 
failing to obtain the 60 votes needed to waive the limitations of the 
Budget Act. Perhaps that amendment was ahead of its time, given the 
more recent success of Congressman Shuster in lining up support for his 
off-budget proposal. I believe that when Americans pay at the pump, 
either as individuals or on behalf of businesses, there is an 
understanding that their fuel taxes will be spent on improving the 
roads and bridges on which they are driving and improving mass transit. 
Accordingly, I am hopeful that my colleagues will soon entertain a 
proposal to take the transportation trust funds off budget or, at the 
very least, ensure that prospectively every dollar which comes in is 
spent on improving our transportation infrastructure.
  Among the positive elements of this bill which deserve commendation 
are the increases in funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality (CMAQ) improvement program by an average of 18 percent over 
current levels. These funds are available with substantial flexibility 
to the State to provide to communities for projects reducing traffic 
congestion, such as the Pittsburgh Airport Busway, a significant mass 
transit project undertaken by the Port Authority of Allegheny County 
which will have a positive impact on air pollution in that region.
  I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment by Senator Jeffords which 
will establish a new grant program to preserve and rehabilitate our 
nation's historic covered bridges. In many parts of Pennsylvania, such 
as Berks County, covered bridges are tourist attractions which generate 
economic growth and necessary means of transportation for residents. 
Many are in substandard condition and these funds are intended to 
preserve this important element of our culture.
  Mr. President, reauthorizing the 1991 ISTEA law also provides 
Congress an opportunity to single out vital highway and transit 
projects throughout the nation for special funding. There are many, 
many projects which deserve such consideration, and, as I did in my 
Senate Floor statement of June 18, 1991, I think it worthwhile to 
comment on a few in my State of Pennsylvania. I cannot cover them all, 
of course, in these remarks, but the following highway and transit 
projects are indicative of the needs we have across the Commonwealth 
for improved, safer roads and for new public transportation facilities.


       Examples of Key Pennsylvania Highway and Transit Projects

  Schuylkill Valley Metro--At a time when we need to do more to 
facilitate travel from downtown metropolitan areas to suburban job 
centers, I am pleased that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority (SEPTA) is working with the Berks Area Reading Transportation 
Authority (BARTA) to develop light rail or commuter rail service 
between Philadelphia and the Reading area. This project involves the 
construction of a 62-mile corridor between Philadelphia and Wyomissing, 
via Norristown, Phoenixville, Pottstown, and Reading. The new rail line 
would stop at 28 stations and serve an estimated 30,500 passengers/day 
if light rail, or 20,800 if commuter rail. I visited one of the 
proposed stations in Bala Cynwyd on March 2, 1998, and believe that the 
Schuylkill Valley Metro exemplifies the type of transit project for 
which the New Starts account was developed. Total project cost 
estimates are $720 million for light rail ($576 million federal share) 
and $403 million for commuter rail ($322.4 million federal share).
  Frankford Transportation Center--On May 12, 1997, I joined 
Congressman Robert Borski at the site of the proposed Frankford 
Transportation Center, which is the final piece of SEPTA's Frankford 
Elevated Reconstruction project, the largest capital project in SEPTA's 
history. SEPTA seeks $112 million in federal funds for this $140 
million project, which would include construction of a new transit 
center and parking facilities at the Bridge-Pratt Terminal and the 
realignment and rehabilitation of the elevated guideway between Dyre 
Avenue and Bridge Street. A new terminal will serve elevated, bus, and 
trackless trolley passengers, taking thousands of cars off 
Philadelphia's streets each day.
  Route 309 Improvements/Montgomery County--For many years, there have 
been far too many accidents along Route 309 in suburban Montgomery 
County, particularly in the vicinity of the Fort Washington 
Interchange. Based on my recent visit in February, 1998, where 
Congressman Jon Fox and I were briefed by the Pennsylvania Department 
of Transportation, I believe that we are now in a position to initiate 
and complete substantial improvements to 10.2 miles of Route 309 from 
Greenwood Avenue to Welsh Road during the five years covered by the 
ISTEA bill. PennDOT has already undertaken some preliminary engineering 
work and this $188 million project ($97 million federal share) would 
include pavement reconstruction, lengthening of acceleration and 
deceleration lanes, widened shoulders, replacement of signs and guide 
rails, and drainage improvements. As someone who travels regularly on 
Route 309, I urge my colleagues to designate this highway as a high 
priority for federal construction funds in this bill.

  Interstate 95/Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange--For those of us who 
live and travel extensively in the Philadelphia area, it is still hard 
to believe that there is no connection between Interstate 95 and the 
Pennsylvania Turnpike, two of the most significant highways in the 
Northeast. At long last, this legislation offers us the chance to 
construct an interchange, which will reduce congestion on local 
roadways, facilitate the movement of goods through Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, and reduce motorist confusion when traveling from one of these 
roadways to the other. This $572 million project ($337 million federal 
share) would entail construction of a high-speed interchange, widening 
sections of the Turnpike and I-95 near the interchange from four to six 
lanes, modification of toll facilities, and increasing the capacity of 
the Delaware River Bridge through construction of a new parallel 
structure. On February 18, 1998, I joined Congressman Jim Greenwood in 
visiting the site of the proposed interchange and came away even more 
impressed than before by the need for funding this vital project in 
Bucks County.
  Philadelphia International Airport--There are plans to construct a 
new $300 million international terminal at the Airport, which is 
expected to generate 3,000 jobs and more than $3 billion in economic 
activity. This project is critical to the Airport's emergence as a 
major international gateway, and I am hopeful that the final bill will 
include funds for roadway and ramp improvements involving Interstate 95 
and local roads, which will cost an estimated $90 million.
  Mon Valley-Fayette Expressway/Southern Beltway--Since the mid-1980's, 
I have worked with elected officials from Allegheny, Washington, and 
Fayette Counties, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and the Mon 
Valley Progress Council to obtain funds for this very important 
project, which has tremendous economic development potential from West 
Virginia into Pittsburgh and to the Pittsburgh International Airport. 
The seven segments of the Expressway and the Beltway will cost $2.5 
billion to complete

[[Page S1852]]

($1.8 billion Mon Valley-Fayette, $700 million Southern Beltway) and 
will include 92.5 miles of new toll road in the Pittsburgh region. To 
date, $24 million in federal funds have been allocated for the entire 
project. Some of the segments have recently entered the initial 
construction phase, while others must still undergo environmental 
studies. In the economically depressed areas of Southwestern 
Pennsylvania, a highway project of this magnitude, linking Interstate 
highways in the region for commerce and tourism, will bring new 
opportunities for growth and economic expansion. Now, more than ever, 
Congress needs to recognize the potential of this project and provide 
the funding necessary to complete construction once and for all.
  Allegheny County--Stage II Light Rail Transit--Allegheny County has 
made a real investment in mass transit in recent years, particularly on 
the Airport Busway/Wabash HOV project, which I have been pleased to 
support as a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. 
The next significant undertaking by the Port Authority of Allegheny 
County is a project to reconstruct 12 miles of its 25 mile light rail 
system, including upgrading the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley 
lines to light rail standards, as well as the addition of 2,500 park 
and ride spaces and the acquisition of 27 new light rail vehicles. I 
met with local officials and the leadership of the Port Authority on 
February 20, 1998 at South Hills Junction and believe that this $493 
million project ($394 million federal share) deserves 
full consideration for funding within the transit New Starts account. 
This is especially true when one notes that the Stage II project is 
expected to carry 25,000 riders daily by 2015 and thus remove 2,000 
daily automobile trips from local roads.

  North Shore Central Business District--City and regional planners in 
Pittsburgh have proposed the development of a complete transportation 
improvement package, including transit, roadway, pedestrian and parking 
that accommodates both the access and connectivity needs of existing 
activities in the district and the needs of several proposed 
development projects. Working with the Port Authority of Allegheny 
County, local economic development leaders believe that a fixed 
guideway transit system and intermodal facility is an essential part of 
any plan for this part of Pittsburgh. Initial estimates are that $190 
million are needed for this project.
  U.S. Route 219--``Continental One''--Another matter of great 
importance, from a safety and economic development perspective, is the 
effort to upgrade the U.S. Route 219 corridor throughout Pennsylvania 
as part of a long-term project to create the Continental One 
superhighway and NAFTA trade corridor from Canada to Mexico. Route 219 
stretches 199 miles through Pennsylvania from Maryland to New York via 
Somerset, Cambria, Clearfield, Jefferson, Elk, and McKean Counties. The 
1991 ISTEA law provided $89 million in federal funds for Route 219 
projects, as I had urged in my Senate floor speech of June 18, 1991. 
Since then, I have met with the U.S. Route 219 International Trade and 
Travel Corridor Coalition in Washington and have spoken to local 
officials and countless Pennsylvanians who support improvements to 
Route 219 which are necessary to establishing a major trade corridor 
and generating substantial economic development in the region. Although 
the total price tag for upgrading the entire Route 219 corridor of $3.4 
billion is too much to obtain in this one piece of legislation, I 
believe Congress should provide substantial funds for engineering and 
construction of high priority segments within the Route 219 corridor.
  Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Transportation Center--I have been pleased to 
work for more than one year with Wilkes-Barre Mayor Tom McGroarty, who 
first proposed this to me and Congressman Paul Kanjorski in February, 
1997. This $17.3 million transportation center ($13.8 million federal 
share) would coordinate multiple modes of transportation by combining a 
bus terminal for Luzerne County Transportation buses and inter-city 
buses, as well as a taxi loading area and a park-and-ride lot. Having 
visited the site in April, 1997 and in February, 1998, I am confident 
that the Center will increase downtown economic development by 
providing additional parking, improve safety by loading and unloading 
passengers in a designated area, and reduce traffic congestion by 
encouraging the use of mass transit. I was pleased to obtain $1.5 
million for this project in the FY98 Transportation Appropriations Act 
for initial engineering and design work and believe that it merits 
designated funds in this ISTEA legislation.
  Erie East Side Connector--In 1991, I was pleased to join with then-
Congressman Tom Ridge in support of $7.5 million specifically included 
in the original ISTEA law for preliminary engineering and environmental 
impact statement for the Erie East Side Connector project. Construction 
of this project will cost $94 million and involves a new 4-lane highway 
to connect the Bayfront Parkway in the City of Erie to I-90 at Exit 9. 
This project has the support of Congressman Phil English and local 
officials because it will help stimulate economic growth on Erie's East 
side and represents a missing link in the region's transportation 
infrastructure.
  Allentown American Parkway--This $35 million project involves a 1.6 
miles controlled access, four-lane highway and new bridge connecting 
both the Allentown central business district and the riverfront area of 
the city to U.S. Route 22 and the Lehigh Valley International Airport. 
The goal would be to relieve congestion on the three existing river 
crossings and spur economic development in the area.

  Pittston Airport Access Road--In August, 1997, I toured the site of 
this proposed $8.3 million project ($6.6 million federal share), which 
would create a new 1.6 mile access road connecting the main entrance of 
the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport to several commercial 
and industrial sites on airport land and on two industrial tracts 
southeast of the Airport. Both Congressman Paul Kanjorski and I agree 
that this project merits ISTEA funding because the benefits of building 
this road include reduced traffic congestion and improved public safety 
and the prevention of traffic accidents such as those that have 
occurred along several narrow and winding roads near the industrial 
development.
  Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway--Congressman McDade has been 
active in the House of Representatives in support of a $2.2 million 
project to construct a new ramp between Exits 56 and 57 on Interstate 
81 in Lackawanna County as an extension of the $360 million Lackawanna 
Valley Industrial Highway project. The proposed on-off ramp will 
improve traffic conditions on I-81 and provide more direct access to 
the 180-acre Viewmont Mall/Viewmont Commerce Center and Dickson City 
Crossings. In addition, it will provide access to 450 acres of adjacent 
property. Local officials support the project because it will reduce 
traffic congestion and facilitate development at these commercial 
facilities, creating an estimated additional 1,700 full-time and part-
time jobs in the area.
  U.S. Route 222 (Berks County)--Throughout parts of Berks County, it 
is well-recognized that there is a need for improvements to U.S. Route 
222, which are estimated to cost $195 million. In the 1991 ISTEA law, 
we were able to obtain $6.6 million for the Warren Street Bypass 
Extension North project, which is being used at present for 
construction that should be completed in November, 2000. Three other 
segments of U.S. Route 222 deserve consideration for special priority 
in this bill, including the Warren Street Bypass Extension South, 
Lancaster Pike Reconstruction (widening and reconstructing four miles 
of Route 222 from Grings Hill Road to the Berks/Lancaster County Line), 
and construction of a new interchange between Route 222 and State Route 
183 in the City of Reading.
  U.S. Route 30--Lancaster County is one of the fastest growing 
counties in population and economic growth throughout Pennsylvania and 
its infrastructure needs to keep up with increased demands. For several 
years, there has been an effort to improve Route 30, particularly for 
safety concerns. Specifically, the $86 million Route 30 Bypass multi-
lane highway project will be the final connecting

[[Page S1853]]

link across Southeastern and South Central Pennsylvania, with the 
``East'' Section stretching from U.S. Route 222 to PA Route 340 in 
Manheim and East Lampeter Townships and the City of Lancaster, and the 
``West'' Section stretching from PA Route 741 to PA Route 72 in East 
Hempfield and Manheim Townships and the City of Lancaster.
  Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport Access Road--I have met 
regularly with representatives from Lycoming County and the City of 
Williamsport on their transportation needs, particularly for 
improvements in the vicinity of the Williamsport-Lycoming County 
Airport. In the House, Congressman McDade has sought an earmark for $12 
million in federal funds toward the $15 million project cost to 
construct a new access road from Interstate-180 to the Airport. The 
primary objective is to improve access to the Airport (which is 
essential to its ability to grow as a regional transportation hub), 
provide development opportunities on lands adjacent to the Airport, and 
to coordinate these improvements with a levee system around the Borough 
of Montoursville to provide flood protection.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, passage of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, signals a significant 
accomplishment for this session of the 105th Congress. In passing this 
comprehensive six-year surface transportation bill, the Senate makes 
two profoundly important statements to the American traveling public. 
First, we are telling the American public that we are intent on using 
the revenues that we collect at the gas pump, from the American highway 
user, on the purposes for which they were collected; namely, the 
maintenance, upkeep, and expansion of our national highway and transit 
systems. Second, we are telling the traveling public that we intend to 
reverse the federal government's chronic underinvestment in our 
national highway needs.
  I want to take this opportunity to recount the major milestones of a 
multi-step process that brought us to this point where we will pass a 
highway bill calling for a full $173 billion of investment over the six 
years, 1998 through 2003. I also want to thank the many persons and 
organizations that have brought us to this point in time.
  The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 assessed a new 4.3 
cents gas tax solely for the purposes of deficit reduction. This was 
the first time since the Highway Trust Fund had been established in 
1956, that a permanent gas tax was put on the books for a purpose other 
than highway investment. In May of 1996, our former colleague, Senator 
Dole of Kansas, rekindled the debate on the appropriate use of the 4.3 
cents-per-gallon gas tax. At that time, I signaled to my colleagues my 
intent to offer an amendment to transfer the 4.3 cent gas tax to the 
Highway Trust Fund so that it could be used for our ever-growing unmet 
needs in the area of highway construction and the maintenance of our 
nation's bridges. During the summer of 1996, at the behest of both the 
majority and the minority leaders, I deferred offering my amendment to 
transfer this tax into the Highway Trust Fund on two separate tax 
bills. Unfortunately, another opportunity to offer my amendment did not 
arise during the 104th Congress.
  Last year, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, I found a strong 
ally for my efforts in my colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas. During 
debate on the budget resolution last year, Senator Gramm offered a 
sense of the Senate resolution supporting the transfer of the 4.3 
cents-per-gallon gas tax from deficit reduction to the Highway Trust 
Fund, and the spending of that revenue on our highway construction 
needs. Senator Gramm was joined by 81 of our colleagues in support of 
this resolution. Later that year, when the Finance Committee marked up 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Senator Gramm, a member of that 
committee, successfully included a provision transferring the 4.3 cents 
to the Highway Trust Fund. That provision became law with the enactment 
of the Taxpayer Relief Act in August of 1997.
  In transferring this new revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, the 
Congress was presented with an opportunity to authorize and spend 
dramatically increased resources on our highway needs. There is no 
question that these funds are sorely needed. I have taken to the Floor 
numerous times over the past three years to remind my colleagues of the 
hundreds of thousands of miles of highways in the nation that are rated 
in poor or fair condition, and the thousands of bridges across our 
nation that are rated as structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete. Unfortunately, the highway bill, as originally reported by 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, did not authorize one penny 
of this new revenue to be spent on our nation's highways and bridges. 
Indeed, under the funding levels reported by the Environment and Public 
Works Committee for the highway program, the unspent balance in the 
Highway Trust Fund (including both the highway and transit accounts), 
was expected to grow from $22.9 billion at the beginning of 1998 to 
more than $55 billion at the end of 2003, the end of the ISTEA II 
authorization period. Upon learning of this situation, I held several 
discussions on the subject with members of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, including Chairman Chafee, and the Ranking Member, 
Senator Baucus. Following these discussions, I decided to prepare an 
amendment which would authorize the full amount of revenues going into 
the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. Given the continuing 
deterioration of our nation's highways in all 50 states, and the 
growing volume of concern on the part of the nation's governors and 
state legislators, on the federal government's underinvestment in our 
infrastructure, I felt that it was essential that the Senate have an 
opportunity to vote on whether or not we mean what we say when we place 
highway tax revenues into the Highway Trust Fund.

  I was first joined in the amendment by my colleague, Senator Gramm. 
Shortly thereafter, our efforts were given a great boost when we were 
joined by Senator Baucus, the Ranking Member of the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee, and Senator Warner, the subcommittee's 
chairman. Despite substantial early opposition from certain Senators, 
including the Chairman of the full Environment and Public Works and 
Budget Committees, Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and I diligently 
sought to obtain co-sponsors for our amendment. In total, we were able 
to secure an additional 50 co-sponsors, making a total of 54 co-
sponsors for the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment.
  Our amendment authorized additional contract authority for highways 
over the period Fiscal Year 1999 through 2003, totaling $30.971 
billion. That amount was the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of 
the revenue from this portion of the 4.3 cents gas tax that would be 
deposited into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund over that 
five-year period. In January of this year, the Congressional Budget 
Office reestimated that five-year figure to a level of $27.41 billion, 
or a reduction of $3.561 billion from their earlier forecast.
  At the end of last month, Mr. President, it appeared that a true 
battle was brewing. The Senate was divided into two camps--the camp of 
those that had joined with Senators Byrd, Gramm, Baucus, and Warner in 
support of authorizing the spending of the additional revenue to the 
Highway Trust Fund, and the opposition, led by Senators Dominici and 
Chafee, who opposed this approach. This division was causing a delay in 
Senate consideration of the ISTEA bill, a delay that made all Senators 
uncomfortable since we continue to face the May 1 deadline beyond which 
most states cannot obligate any federal aid highway funds absent a new 
authorization bill. At the end of last month, the Majority Leader, 
Senator Lott, asked that all parties join him in his office for 
negotiations on this issue. While I must admit I was not inclined to 
negotiate in a manner that would cause us to abandon our principle of 
authorizing the spending of the Highway Trust Fund revenue, I, along 
with Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, did join with 
the Majority Leader, and Senator Chafee, Senator Domenici and, at 
times, Senator D'Amato to discuss the situation. After many days of 
back and forth, and the very adept moderating style of the Majority 
Leader, I was pleased that an agreement emerged that enabled us to add 
an amendment totaling 25.920 billion dollars to the

[[Page S1854]]

highway bill. This amount represents 94 percent of CBO's most recent 
estimate of the revenue to the highway account, stemming from the 4.3 
cents gas tax. I was especially pleased that, as part of these 
negotiations, Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Budget Committee, 
committed himself to finding the outlays through the budget resolution 
process to see to it that these funds will not just be authorized, but 
will also be spent through the annual appropriations process. Further, 
I appreciate the support of the agreement by the Distinguished Chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, as well 
as for his outstanding work in managing this complex bill over the 
several weeks that it has been before the Senate. I also wish to 
recognize the cooperation and support that I have received for many 
months on my amendment to this important legislation by our 
Distinguished Minority Leader Mr. Daschle. He joined as a cosponsor of 
the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment early on and was a staunch 
advocate and supporter throughout.

  On a matter that is of critical importance to this Senator, this 
amendment included $1.89 billion for the Appalachian Development 
Highway System. Coupled with the $300 million already in the committee 
bill for this system, total funding over the six-year ISTEA bill, for 
the Appalachian Highway System, will equal $2.19 billion, the full 
amount requested by the Administration in their ISTEA proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor 
to amendment number 1397, the so-called Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner 
amendment, to S. 1173.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. BYRD. That brings the total number of cosponsors to 54. Mr. 
President, I thank all cosponsors of our amendment who, in effect, were 
trying to force the government to live up to the commitment it made to 
the American people and require that money collected in gasoline taxes 
for the purpose of building roads actually be spent for that purpose. 
At various times over the course of the last several months, many of 
these cosponsors spoke on the Floor in an attempt to bring to the 
attention of the leadership the importance of bringing up the ISTEA II 
bill as expeditiously as possible, and I thank those members for their 
efforts.
  In addition to the support of these cosponsors, we had outstanding 
support from a large number of outside organizations ranging from the 
American Automobile Association to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I wish 
to thank all of these organizations, without whose support it would 
have been impossible to have been successful in our efforts to not only 
bring the bill up as quickly as we were able to, but to have adopted 
the Environmental and Public Works Committee amendment, which provides 
some 94 percent of the contract authority proposed in the original 
Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment. Indicative of the support received 
by these organizations was a very strong statement given before the 
National Governors Association by the President and CEO of the American 
Automobile Association, Robert L. Darbelnet, in which he expressed 
strong support for the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of the 54 co-sponsors of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment, 
a list of the organizations which assisted in our efforts to bring the 
highway bill to the Floor in an expeditious manner, and the 
aforementioned statement by Mr. Darbelnet, President and CEO of the 
American Automobile Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Co-Sponsors of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner Amendment

       Senator Akaka, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Baucus, Senator 
     Bingaman, Senator Breaux, Senator Brownback, Senator Bryan, 
     Senator Bumpers, Senator Burns, Senator Byrd, Senator 
     Campbell, Senator Cleland, Senator Conrad, Senator Coverdell, 
     Senator Craig, Senator Daschle, Senator DeWine, Senator Dodd, 
     Senator Dorgan, Senator Faircloth, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
     Ford, Senator Glenn, Senator Gramm, Senator Grams, Senator 
     Harkin, Senator Helms, Senator Hollings, Senator Hutchinson, 
     Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Inouye, Senator 
     Jeffords, Senator Johnson, Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
     Kennedy, Senator Kerrey, Senator Kerry, Senator Landrieu, 
     Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator 
     McCain, Senator McConnell, Senator Mikulski, Senator Nickles, 
     Senator Reid, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Santorum, Senator 
     Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Specter, Senator Thomas, 
     and Senator Warner.
                                                                    ____


     Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner Amendment Support Group Participants

       American Automobile Association.
       American Automobile Manufacturers Association.
       American Consulting Engineers Council.
       American Highway Users Alliance.
       American Iron and Steel Institute.
       American Petroleum Institute.
       American Portland Cement Alliance.
       American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
       American Traffic Safety Services Association.
       American Trucking Association.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated Equipment Distributors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       Ashland Oil, Inc.
       Carpenters Union.
       Construction Industry Manufacturers Association.
       Contech Construction Products Inc.
       Donor State Industry Coalition.
       Energy Absorption Systems Inc.
       Equipment Manufacturers Institute.
       International Union of Operating Engineers.
       Keep America Moving.
       Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
       Motor Freight Carriers Association.
       National Asphalt Pavement Association.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Truck Stop Operators.
       National Governors Association.
       National Private Truck Council.
       National Stone Association.
       Recreation Vehicle Industry Association.
       Service Station Dealers of America.
       The Road Information Program.
       Transportation Construction Coalition.
       Transportation Intermediaries Association.
       United Parcel Service.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       Vulcan Materials.
                                                                    ____


     Robert L. Darbelnet, AAA President & CEO, National Governors 
 Association, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce, Sunday, 
                   February 22, 1998--Washington, DC.

       Governors, distinguished guests.
       It is a pleasure to be here. And a privilege to address you 
     on behalf of AAA's 40 million members.
       American motorists depend on their cars to get them to and 
     from work, the Little League game, the grocery store. Safe 
     and efficient roads and bridges are high priorities to them. 
     And they have been paying $30 billion a year in federal 
     gasoline taxes to keep their roads in good repair.
       The problem is that the government has been siphoning off 
     $10 billion a year to create the illusion of a smaller 
     deficit. AAA strongly supports a balanced budget, but not at 
     the expense of essential public services.
       Last year, AAA supported efforts to redirect 4.3 cents per 
     gallon of the gasoline tax from deficit reduction to the 
     Highway Trust Fund. While those efforts were successful, 
     there is still no authority to invest that money in 
     transportation.
       That's why AAA is urging passage of the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-
     Baucus Amendment to the highway bill. We want that 4.3 cents 
     per gallon invested in properly maintained roads and bridges 
     that improve traffic safety and reduce congestion.
       In June 1996, AAA launched a national campaign called 
     ``Crisis Ahead'' to alert the country about the rapid 
     deterioration of our highway and bridges. We said at that 
     time that unless our citizens and government policymakers 
     were moved to action, a national crisis would be inevitable.
       Here we are nearly two years later and, unfortunately, the 
     policy makers have not acted effectively. As a result, the 
     crisis AAA predicted . . . may no longer be ahead. It may 
     already be here.
       The numbers tell a tragic story:
       1. Almost 30% of all motor vehicle crashes are caused, at 
     least in part, by poorly designed or maintained roads.
       2. The number of people killed on our highways is rising--
     from 39,000 to 42,000 annually.
       3. In fact, according to the Department of Transportation, 
     someone in the United States dies in a motor vehicle crash 
     every 13 minutes.
       To understand why things are deteriorating, consider this 
     gap:
       Since 1960, vehicle miles traveled in this country jumped 
     234%.
       The taxes motorists paid to fix highways shot up 155%.
       But investment in our highway system plummeted 50%.
       To sum the situation up: Motorists are paying more taxes to 
     drive more vehicles more miles, over roads maintained with 
     less money.
       As a result: More than one-third of major U.S. roads are in 
     poor to mediocre condition.
       Almost a third of the nation's bridges are dilapidated, too 
     narrow or too weak to safely

[[Page S1855]]

     carry traffic across them for much longer. The Woodrow Wilson 
     Bridge here in Washington is a prime example.
       Other consequences are more difficult to measure but are 
     nonetheless real. Such as:
       The downturn in a region's economy, as its businesses and 
     jobs relocate to communities with better roads and less 
     congestion.
       Road rage and aggressive driving.
       Deaths and injuries that might have been prevented by guard 
     rails, wider lanes or better lighting.
       A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety--a copy of 
     which you should have in front of you--outlines the safety 
     benefits we can achieve if we invest our transportation 
     resources wisely.
       For example:
       By increasing lane width one foot, we can reduce crashes by 
     12%.
       Removing hazards within 10 feet of a road would reduce 
     these types of crashes by 25%.
       Removing hazards that are within 20 feet would reduce 
     crashes by 44%.
       Every dollar we spend making these improvements on lower-
     grade roads actually produces a savings of nearly $3. In my 
     view, that's a wise investment.
       Allowing federal gas tax dollars to accumulate in the 
     Highway Trust Fund is NOT a wise investment. It may look like 
     a savings on paper but, in reality, it merely shifts expenses 
     to other areas of the economy:
       It pushes up the cost of insurance.
       It pushes up the cost of health care.
       It pushes up the cost of doing business.
       And it delays the inevitable time when road and bridge 
     work--not done today--will HAVE to be done anyway. But at 
     that point, the work will not only be more urgent, it will be 
     much more costly.
       Fortunately, there are obvious solutions
       First, we must get the ISTEA bill on the floor for debate 
     and action--now. Further delay will only make matters worse.
       And second, we should invest every penny in the Highway 
     Trust Fund the way American motorists intended when they 
     passed the gasoline tax--to keep our transportation system 
     running safely and efficiently.
       We're not talking about paving over the nation with new 
     roads. We're talking about maintaining and improving the ones 
     we've got. Preventing further deterioration. Making roads 
     safer.
       AAA is proud to lend the voices of its 40 million members 
     in support of the governors and the Coalition for TRUST in 
     their mission to increase the transportation investment.
       Our goal is to ensure safety and freedom of mobility for 
     this generation and generations to come.
       In addition to improving roads and saving lives . . .
       Spending the trust fund as it was intended will produce two 
     beneficial side effects:
       1. American motorists will get what they're paying for. 
     That's all they want. And . . .
       2. Congress and the Administration will protect one of 
     their greatest assets. I'm not referring to the 
     transportation infrastructure. I'm referring to the trust of 
     the American people.
       The money has been collected for transportation.
       It shouldn't be highjacked.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in addition to thanking these many groups, I 
also deeply appreciate the efforts of the staffs of the principal co-
sponsors of our amendment. They include Steve McMillin of Senator 
Gramm's staff, Tom Sliter and Kathy Ruffalo of Senator Baucus' staff, 
Ann Loomis and Ellen Stein of Senator Warner's staff, and Jim English 
and Peter Rogoff of my own staff. Also, the majority leader's staff, 
namely Keith Hennessey and Carl Biersack, deserve great credit for 
their efforts toward reaching a consensus on the critical funding 
agreement to this bill. Finally, I also thank the individuals at the 
Federal Highway Administration, who have toiled diligently outside of 
the limelight, in bringing this bill to closure. They include Jack 
Basso in Secretary Slater's office, as well as Bud Wright, Patty 
Doersch, and Bruce Swindford, at the Federal Highway Administration. 
Their assistance was instrumental in providing data and technical 
assistance in development of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner Amendment, as 
well as for the underlying committee bill.
  This is a bill, of which I am proud, and of which all Senators should 
be proud, and for which I urge all Senators to vote aye.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the silence indicates assent that 
will soon be given, in perhaps three-quarters of an hour's time, to 
this momentous piece of legislation. My rough calculations are that 
over the next 5 years it will be in the area of $215 billion, well 
spent--well spent--on America's transportation infrastructure. I thank, 
again, my distinguished colleague from Montana, who has been a partner 
throughout this effort.
  I think this silence reflects the credit we may be owed for working 
on this bill together with Senator Chafee, who will be back 
momentarily.
  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. 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, I am pleased that the Senate will soon 
favorably conclude action on S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998, or ISTEA II.
  ISTEA II is a 6-year bill that reauthorizes our nation's highway 
construction, highway safety and research programs. As reported from 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, it provides $171.3 
billion over 6 years.
  Our funding level of $171.3 billion is 36 percent greater than the 
$120 billion funding level provided in ISTEA I.
  Our funding level of $171.3 billion exceeds the funding level of $135 
billion proposed in the Administration's NEXTEA bill.
  Mr. President, along with my strong working partner, Senator Baucus, 
I have worked for higher funding levels for our nation's surface 
transportation programs. Last year, I joined the efforts of Senators 
Byrd and Gramm  to increase the spending for highway programs.
  I am pleased that our final bill invests some $214 billion in our 
nation's transportation infrastructure.
  I am grateful to the Majority Leader who gave great assistance in our 
efforts to include more money for our surface transportation needs. 
Clearly, the additional funds allowed us to get to this point today. 
This increase in funding moved us one step closer to completion of this 
matter prior to our May 1 deadline.
  Our state and local transportation partners deserve nothing less. Due 
to the significant length of time required to plan and design any 
transportation project--an average of 7 years--our states must be able 
to efficiently respond to transportation demands.
  Mr. President, this bill is one that the full Senate can be proud to 
support as balanced and fair.
  Those are the two principles that guided my efforts in the drafting 
of this bill.
  I am well aware that every Senator may not be entirely pleased with 
this bill. I am convinced, however, that overall we bring to the Senate 
a bill--that addresses the mobility demands of the American people and 
the growing freight movements of American goods; that will continue to 
ensure America's competitiveness in a ``one-world'' market; and, that, 
for the first time, provides a fair and equitable return to every state 
based on the amount of funds we spend.
  Every state will be guaranteed 91 percent of the funds we spend based 
on each state's contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.
  This legislation represents the results of hard fought negotiations 
between Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus and myself.
  I want to thank both Senators for their leadership, and all the 
members of the Committee for their contributions, in developing a 
compromise that represents a balance among the 50 states.
  This legislation is the product of months of spirited discussions.
  It is a compromise that addresses the unique transportation needs in 
the different regions of the country--the congestion demands of the 
growing South and Southwest, the aging infrastructure needs of the 
Northeast, and the national transportation needs of the rural West.
  In putting together this bipartisan and comprehensive measure, great 
care was taken to preserve fundamental principles of ISTEA I that 
worked well.
  ISTEA II upholds and strengthens ISTEA'S laudable goals of mobility, 
intermodalism, efficiency and program flexibility.
  We were committed to continuing those hallmarks of ISTEA which have 
proven to be successful and are strongly supported by our state and 
local transportation partners, including--ensuring that our 
transportation programs contribute to and are compatible with our 
national commitment to

[[Page S1856]]

protect our environment; building upon the shared decision-making 
between the Federal state and local governments; and ensuring that the 
public continues to participate fully in the transportation planning 
process.
  Mr. President, perhaps the most critical issue that the Committee 
addressed in this legislation is the development of equitable funding 
formulas.
  ISTEA I failed to distribute funding to our states based on current 
data that measures the extent, use and condition of our transportation 
system. ISTEA I apportioned funds to the States based on each State's 
historical share of funds received in 1987.
  As we prepare for the transportation challenges of the 21st century, 
reforms to the funding formulas were long overdue.
  This legislation uses indicators that measure the current needs of 
our transportation system. Many of the factors used to distribute funds 
are consistent with the alternatives identified in GAO's 1995 report 
entitled, ``Highway Funding, Alternatives for Distributing Federal 
Funds.''
  These indicators are standard measurements of lane miles which 
represent the extent of the system in a state, vehicle miles traveled 
which represent the extent of congestion, and structural and capacity 
deficiencies of our nation's bridges.
  Using current measurements of our transportation system were called 
for in every major reauthorization bill introduced this session--
including the Administration's NEXTEA bill, STEP-21, STARS 2000, and 
ISTEA Works.
  In revising these funding formulas, I believe we have made 
significant progress in addressing one of the major shortfalls of 
ISTEA--namely, providing every state a fair return based on their 
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.
  Our bill today ensures fairness. Every state will receive a minimum 
guarantee of 91 percent of the funds apportioned to the states.
  This guarantee is very different from the so-called 90 percent 
Minimum Allocation in ISTEA I.
  The Minimum Guarantee is applied to 100 percent of apportioned 
funds--those funds sent to the states.
  Second, the Minimum Guarantee calculation is reformed so that the 
percent guarantee is actually achieved. We all know that ISTEA I gave 
many states less than 90 percent because it did not include all the 
funds that were distributed to states.
  I am also pleased to report that ISTEA makes great progress in 
consolidating and streamlining the program.
  Under ISTEA I there are 5 major program categories. Under ISTEA II, 
those program categories have been consolidated into 3 major programs--
the Interstate and National Highway System program, the Surface 
Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
program.
  Under ISTEA I there are 5 apportionment adjustments--most of them 
designed to address concerns of donor states--that have not worked. 
ISTEA II provides for two simple adjustments. One, for donor states and 
small states to provide them a minimum share of funding. The second, to 
provide a transition for states based on part of their ISTEA funding.
  The Committee bill also includes many revisions to Federal highway 
procedures to streamline the complex process of Federal reviews of 
state projects.
  It is my very strong hope that these provisions will enable our 
states to improve project delivery--the time it takes for a project to 
move from design to construction to completion.
  Today, it takes on average 7 years to complete a project. We must 
provide our states with the tools to do better. I believe many 
provisions in this bill will free them from Federal redtape which has 
delayed many projects.
  Mr. President, those are some of the important highlights of the 
Committee bill.
  Before concluding my remarks, I must also recognize the significant 
contributions of the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater. As the 
former Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Secretary 
Slater brought a great deal of personal knowledge and expertise to our 
efforts. Throughout our efforts to draft this legislation and to devise 
the funding formulas, we were highly dependent on the expertise of the 
many dedicated professionals at the Federal Highway Administration. I 
want to particularly recognize Jack Basso, Patty Doersch, Bud Wright, 
Tom Weeks, Roger Mingo and Bruce Swinford.
  Again, I want to commend Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus for their 
leadership bridging the many different views on this bill. I believe 
this is a good bill that deserves the strong support of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I have just had the unique opportunity here on the 
floor to recognize the presence of the chairman of the House Committee 
on Transportation, Mr. Shuster, who came over to consult with me and 
indicate that the Speaker of the House has established a task force of 
the leadership of the House and the task force has been moving; that he 
anticipates that he will have a bill ready, hopefully passed April 1, 
first recognizing that during the course of the month of May, we can 
complete a conference and send a bill to the President, perhaps 
complete it before the 1st of May. That is a key deadline for so many 
States.

  I certainly thank the many Governors throughout the United States who 
have come in individually in their own quiet way to consult with the 
leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the Transportation 
Committee on an absolute, imperative need that legislation be in place 
in that May timeframe to enable them to do this important work.
  Mr. President, I am happy to yield the floor, and I note on the floor 
the distinguished chairman, Mr. Chafee. I again thank him for all his 
leadership and work. He was not on the floor when so many Senators came 
to compliment him in his capacity as chairman of the committee. We just 
wish to thank him. He is a very humble man in many respects, but his 
firm leadership will enable us to, in a few moments, pass this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I shall enthusiastically read the Record 
tomorrow to find out about all these fine comments. I want to take this 
opportunity before he leaves the floor to thank my good friend, the 
chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation. He gave 
us such a hand on the floor. We had a few problems to start with, but 
they were soon eliminated, and we charged on.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those were a few funding problems, goals 
for funding.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Those were taken care of, and we were able to charge on 
to this successful conclusion.
  Mr. WARNER. I am sure the chairman shares the views about Senator 
Baucus.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I was just about to say, Senator Baucus is not here, but 
I thank Senator Baucus for the wonderful work he did. We worked as a 
team. We went over the amendments we were going to accept. If there was 
a problem, he cleared them rapidly with those on his side of the aisle 
so we could ascertain where the problems were and attempt to work them 
out. It has been a splendid relationship.
  I will say, that applies to every member of our committee. It is a 
committee that, indeed, does work together. It is a committee that 
reported this bill out not once, but twice, 18-0. Every single member 
of the committee voted for it. I thank every member of the committee, 
whether they are Democrat or Republican, for the wonderful cooperation 
they have given.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator shares the view on 
the leadership given by Senator Lott and also Senator Daschle. There 
were many times for their decisive hands and decisions, which only they 
could make.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct, Mr. President. The majority leader sat 
in with us when we were negotiating a resolution to some of the 
problems. The leader of the minority, Senator Daschle, has been 
extremely cooperative. I salute both of them.
  Also, Mr. President, like all cases, we could not ever have done this 
bill with all its complexities without the splendid staff--Jimmy Powell 
and Dan Corbett and Ann and everyone else who worked so hard in 
connection with resolving this. The same goes for Tom Sliter and others 
on the Democratic side. I thank the staff. They should feel very, very 
proud of what they have accomplished.

[[Page S1857]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes the leadership of two 
distinguished former Secretaries of the Navy.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank the Presiding Officer for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted and, indeed, grateful that 
the Senate is about to conclude action on ISTEA II. I congratulate my 
colleagues for wrapping up this effort with such alacrity, rescuing us 
from a Saturday or even Sunday session, as the majority leader pointed 
out. He--and I agreed with him--was determined we were going to finish 
this bill, and we are finishing it way ahead of the outlying time.
  We have before us a very fine piece of legislation of which we can 
all be proud. It will truly bring our Nation's transportation system 
into the 21st century. It will do so with an unprecedented increase in 
funding, $214 billion over 6 years, for all surface transportation 
programs. That is the highway plus the transit money.
  That includes $171 billion for highways. This increase represents the 
Senate's understanding of the breadth of the needs of our 
infrastructure and our commitment to meeting these needs.
  One year ago, the Senate was very divided on the issue of how ISTEA 
II should look. Within the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
of which I have the privilege of being chairman, we had not one, not 
two, but three very different proposals on what to do with this 
legislation, how to proceed, how to make the allotments amongst the 
various States. All of these proposals had merit, and the duty was to 
try to coalesce them into one unified plan. And we did so.
  Once ISTEA II reached the Senate floor, we had to address even more 
complex issues, such as funding, affirmative action, penalties on drunk 
driving, not to mention the countless highway- and transportation-
related concerns which are inherent in this legislation.
  When it was enacted in 1991, ISTEA I transformed transportation 
policy in this Nation, what was once simply a highway program--if you 
had more requirements, you built more roads; needed more lanes, go 
ahead and build them. But the purpose of this national transportation 
program is not simply to build more roads; it is to move people and 
goods as efficiently, swiftly and safely as possible.
  I pay tribute to the splendid leadership that was given to us on that 
splendid legislation when it came out of the Environment Committee, on 
the floor and in the conference. Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York 
gave us that leadership. I am pleased that ISTEA II perpetuates the 
critical central ideals of ISTEA I passed in 1991--flexibility and 
efficiency and intermodalism.
  We ironed out in ISTEA II some of the problems that were apparent 
under ISTEA I. With the passage of ISTEA II, transportation policy will 
be even more responsive to the challenges of the new century.
  It contains provisions that address the infrastructure challenges of 
the new millennium, the new period we are going into. This legislation 
will endure into the first several years of that new millennium.
  There are exciting technological advances that are made in this 
legislation and innovative financing mechanisms. It redoubles our 
Nation's already strong commitment to the environmental health of our 
people and their safety. There are important measures that strengthen 
each of these areas.
  In the bill before us, we recognize we must reach out and be 
creative. First of all, ISTEA includes a number of innovative ways to 
finance transportation projects. It establishes a Federal credit 
assistance program for surface transportation. This new program 
leverages limited Federal funds by allowing up to a $10.6 billion 
Federal line of credit for transportation projects, at a cost to the 
Federal budget of just over half a billion dollars--$500 million.
  The bill expands and simplifies the State Infrastructure Bank Program 
to enable States to make the most of their transportation dollars. It 
includes a new program that will make it easier for the private sector 
to participate in financing transportation infrastructure. So that is 
the first big step--innovative financing.
  The second step recognizes the important role technology plays in an 
efficient transportation system. Transportation technologies offer a 
wide array of benefits. They relieve traffic congestion if you can 
spend money on coordinating your traffic lights, for example, not just 
building more lanes, but move the same amount of traffic or increase 
the amount of traffic in the same lanes in a swifter and safer fashion. 
That is what the technology innovations do. We strengthen the 
intelligent transportation systems, so-called ITS programs, which were 
established in the original ISTEA. We provide technologies that have 
new options to address safety and capacity concerns.
  Third, the bill before us significantly reforms ISTEA funding 
formulas. Now we are into the formula business. To balance the diverse 
regional needs of the Nation, we address the inequities that came about 
under ISTEA I. The bill before us addresses the tremendous 
infrastructure needs and terrible congestion problems of densely 
populated States such as California, New Jersey, and Illinois. And it 
strengthens the programs tailored to rural expanses in Federal lands in 
the West.
  Fourth, we provide real flexibility to localities and States and make 
the program easier to administer. In ISTEA I, there were five program 
categories. We reduce that to three, and that includes more than 20 
improvements to reduce red tape. As valuable as transportation is to 
society, there is no question but these new roads and the automobiles 
and trucks that are on them have taken a tremendous toll on our 
Nation's air, land, and water. I am proud that ISTEA II builds on the 
original ISTEA efforts to preserve and protect the environment.
  In addition, what we do is to concentrate on the safety of drivers 
and passengers. In the United States, these figures are really 
shocking. More than 40,000 highway deaths occur every year. And just as 
troublesome and worrisome as that is, there are 3.5 million automobile 
crashes that occur each year. These do not--these do not--every one 
result in fatalities, obviously, but from these crashes come people who 
are terribly injured. And these injuries, in frequent cases, are 
detrimental to these individuals throughout the rest of their lives.
  ISTEA II provides several provisions to reverse this trend of 40,000 
deaths a year. We increase the funds devoted to highway safety, and we 
include incentives for States to increase safety belt use in their 
States. We encourage the States to pass legislation dealing with 
seatbelts and to police that requirement, and we do this by not a 
stick, not by punishing them if they fail to do it, but by a carrot, in 
giving them increased moneys if they pass such legislation and enforce 
it.
  I am pleased that during floor consideration of the bill the Senate 
increased its commitment to safety by adopting tougher drunk driving 
standards.
  I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to Senators Warner and Baucus. I 
previously mentioned both of them, but I want to repeat that. They are 
my distinguished comanagers of floor action on ISTEA II. Always, it is 
a pleasure to work with each of them. My gratitude goes as well to 
Senators McCain and Hollings, chairman and ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee; Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes, chairman and ranking 
member of the Banking Committee; Senators Roth and Moynihan, chairman 
and ranking member of the Finance Committee, for their efforts on the 
portions of ISTEA which were within their jurisdiction.
  Finally, I want to thank the majority and minority leaders, Senators 
Lott and Daschle, for their skillful work in bringing this bill to such 
a fine conclusion.
  I also thank the staff for their hard work and diligence. From my 
staff, I wish to thank Dan Corbett, Jimmie Powell, Linda Jordan, 
Abigail Kinnison, Cheryle Tucker, Bob Greenawalt, and Amy Dunathan.

[[Page S1858]]

  Mr. President, this legislation is very complicated. Nearly every 
Senator here has an amendment. And they bring them up to us, as is 
proper, for consideration. And they want an answer: ``Are you going to 
accept this amendment? If you are not willing to accept it, can we make 
changes to make it palatable to all concerned? Are you going to reject 
it so we have to go to a vote?'' It puts a tremendous burden on the 
staff, and they try--and in this case have succeeded--to give swift 
answers to the proponents of each amendment. We had some 500-plus 
amendments that were submitted in connection with this legislation. All 
of them had to be looked at.
  I want to recognize the tireless efforts of Ann Loomis and Ellen 
Stein from Senator Warner's staff, and Kathy Ruffalo and Tom Sliter 
from Senator Baucus' office, and Janine Johnson from the Senate 
legislative counsel's office.
  Last but not least, Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to a 
number of individuals from the Federal Highway Administration who have 
been with our staff on the weekends and well past midnight working on 
this legislation--Patty Doersch, Tom Weeks, Roger Mingo, Deidra 
Goodman, Bud Wright and his staff. Also, I want to thank the Secretary 
of Transportation, Secretary Rodney Slater, for his cooperation. And we 
have had the assistance of the head of the Federal Highway 
Administration, Gen. Kenneth Wykle, whom we consulted with several 
times in connection with this legislation. They are always within a 
phone's reach, both he and the Secretary. And they have been very 
valuable.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to cast a 
resounding ``yea'' vote in favor of S. 1173.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Are we under an order whereby I cannot speak at this 
point, or may I speak before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want to use the rest of the time. Are we 
scheduled to vote at 2:15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 2:15.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence on the floor of a number of 
Senators with whom I have worked diligently to try to get this bill 
accomplished. I am very proud of the result.
  Let me suggest, however, that I now hear rumors coming from, it 
seems, the direction of the House, that we have not done enough. Well, 
that may be one thing in terms of how many demonstration projects we 
have to do. I assume we will go through that general ritual, and who 
knows where the wheel of fortune--we see that every night at 6:30 or 7 
o'clock--will land, who will win, and who gets all the goodies. 
Somebody, obviously.
  I hear, in addition to that, that there is some thought we ought to 
go further, that we ought to take the entire trust fund off budget. Let 
me suggest to my friends in the Senate, obviously, I have little or no 
impact, I assume, on the House at this point on that issue. Frankly, I 
thought we engaged in good faith in a way to get us through this 
transition of 4 or 5 years when we have caps we have to comply with. I 
have committed to try to do that in a way that doesn't decimate 
domestic programs that are within that cap.
  Frankly, if somebody wants to go much further and take the entire 
program off budget, then I don't know how we will meet those caps, for 
they take with it the few billion dollars in reserves that have 
accumulated, that are in the unified budget. They are mostly interest 
payments that have accrued over time. I thought we made a very, very, 
honest effort to find a way to get through. Those caps are applicable 
for only 3 more years--after the one that is the prime year in this 
bill, only 3 years after that--and then they are not there anymore and 
we all have some work to do. It is not just highways. We have to pay 
for the National Institutes of Health. We have to pay for education. 
These programs compete with them. I have said let's compete with them 
and let's try to find offsets. I submit, to make that job almost 
impossible would be the result if you took this in conference and took 
it all off budget.
  Frankly, I don't know that I can do any more than say that and say I 
hope the Senators won't, in conference, agree to any such thing. I hope 
that it is left as it is and you make whatever accommodations you have 
to make and this program will live to be seen and heard from another 
day, as will the trust fund. I don't believe we can spend much more 
than we are planning here. I think we ought to leave it alone.
  I urge my fellow Senators, with whom I have worked very hard, try to 
see that is the result coming out of conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Budget Committee 
well knows, I am always opposed to taking these programs off budget. 
That is my position, and that is the position we will take going into 
conference. We have been treated very well by the Budget Committee in 
connection with this legislation. The Budget chairman has assumed some 
very onerous burdens to find the money for us to come up with this 
program. Certainly I don't think the answer is to take this trust fund 
off budget.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators for listening.
  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. 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have not been ordered on 
the committee amendment, have they?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That's correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the modified 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (amendment No. 1676), 
as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 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
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Feingold
     Kohl
     Santorum
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 1676), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read a third time and 
returned to the calendar.
  The bill (S. 1173), as amended, was read the third time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know that congratulations have already 
been

[[Page S1859]]

extended to the managers of this very important ISTEA bill. But I want 
to join again in expressing my appreciation for the leadership of the 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, did an 
outstanding job in managing this legislation. I think it is quite an 
achievement that actually in about 9 days we were able to get this bill 
through the Senate. There were some bumps along the way, but we were 
able to work them out without acrimony or regional bias. I think really 
they did a magnificent job. The Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, 
worked very closely with the chairman of the committee, but it took 
cooperation with Senator Warner of the subcommittee, and Senator Gramm 
was involved in some key negotiations, and obviously Senator Byrd, who 
always provides direction and leadership that is very important.

  To all the members of the committee, I thank you for this. I think 
the Senate has really provided leadership and given a marker to our 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to take up this important 
legislation, get it to conference, and get it agreed to by May 1, when 
the extension will expire.
  So I think this was certainly a good couple of weeks' work, and I 
thank the Senate for its cooperation. This can be an example, I hope, 
of what we can do on other bills, how we can work together and work out 
problems that appear to be insurmountable. If we had taken this 
legislation up the first week we were back, it would probably have been 
a lot messier and we might not have come to the good result that we 
have fashioned here in this bill. So thanks to one and all. I 
appreciate it very much.
  I mentioned Senator Baucus. He has certainly been a very important 
part of this.
  Would the distinguished Democratic leader like to comment at this 
point?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view expressed just now by 
the majority leader. Certainly, our chairs and ranking members have 
done an outstanding job. I especially want to commend the dean of the 
Senate, our former majority leader, Robert Byrd, and his colleague, 
Phil Gramm, and others who had so much to do with making this possible.
  This has been an effort that will have extraordinary consequences for 
years to come, both in terms of infrastructure and an array of 
different questions that we have to address. This has been an issue 
that Senator Byrd has instructed and educated the Senate about for 
many, many months. It was his leadership and diligence, along with 
Senator Chafee and Baucus and Senator Warner and so many others, that 
brought us to the successful conclusion that we have now achieved.
  I commend them. I thank them. And I hope we can use this as a real 
model for other pieces of legislation that may come before the Senate 
this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am prepared now to move to a unanimous 
consent request with regard to the China human rights issue. I will 
yield to the Senator from Montana if he would like to make some further 
comment on the highway surface transportation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to thank a group that has not 
been thanked yet. That is the Department of Transportation--Secretary 
Slater, Mort Downey, Kenneth Wykle, and others at DOT who I note are in 
the gallery. They are watching these proceedings. They have been a very 
integral part of the passage of this bill. We have gone to the 
Department of Transportation many times to get data, to get their 
assistance. I want to thank not only Senators and staff but also the 
Department of Transportation for their assistance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have paid compliments to some who have 
worked on this bill. I want to add the name of Lee Brown.
  Lee Brown has the current title of assistant editor of morning 
business, and he is soon to be, I am told, elevated to the position of 
editor. Now, those who watch the floor proceedings of the Senate on 
occasion see Mr. Brown, in his usual quiet manner, come up and take 
from a Senator a document which he has asked unanimous consent to have 
placed in the Record. Lee Brown and his associates in this Institution 
somehow find where to put it in the Record, match it up with the 
statement, and get it correct. That is not an easy job.
  So I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Brown for his effective 
work and efforts on this bill, which has had a very significant amount 
of inserts.

                          ____________________