[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5403-S5417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent again, Mr. President, the Senate 
proceed to the ISTEA conference report notwithstanding the receipt of 
the papers and the reading being considered dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would suggest perhaps we could make the unanimous 
consent request subject to the circumstances that are now being 
discussed with the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, that assuming that those two matters could be worked 
out, that no additional unanimous consent requests would be in order.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the ISTEA conference report, notwithstanding the receipt of 
the papers, and it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on 
the adoption of the conference report, and, further----
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me complete my request. And, further, I ask unanimous 
consent that if the House passes the identical text, the vote be 
considered as having occurred on the conference report. I further ask 
unanimous consent that this agreement be null and void only by the 
Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, within the next 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. I renew the same request with the exception of Senator 
Wyden and the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in response to the majority leader's 
request for unanimous consent to proceed to the conference report on 
ISTEA without having all of the conference report papers in hand, I 
must withhold my consent until I have had the opportunity to review the 
sections of the report relating to important funding and project 
matters for Oregon. It is not my intent to delay final action on this 
major piece of legislation; however, I want to be assured that 
commitments that have been made are reflected in fact in the conference 
documents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2400), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by majority the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of May 22, 1998.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia was posing a question to the 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In essence, I was asking if the conference report--the 
floor was 90, so that although South Carolina was getting 71 cents back 
and Georgia 74, we could expect, if this were to pass, 90.5 cents?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia is correct. And I 
must say that it was only because of the efforts of the Senator from 
Georgia, the Senator from South Carolina, and all in the donee-donor 
dispute--the donor States bonded together. I thank the Senator for his 
help, because without it we could not have achieved this result.
  Mr. COVERDELL. One more comment. There are still donor States, so 
there is in this agreement a recognition of special circumstances, 
distances, rural areas, or other infrastructures. There is still a 
subsidy that occurs, some of it legitimate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. There are certain 
programs, like the Federal Lands Program, certain environmental 
programs, to which all the States contribute. The Senator is correct.
  But the major achievement is the floor, which is a floor that puts us 
in range with almost all the other States of significant size. For 
instance, the smaller States, there are 13 small States. That was the 
second building block that the Senator from Virginia put together to 
formulate this bill months ago. It seems so long ago now. The 
distinguished Senator from Montana was a key player in that, Senator 
Graham of Florida, and we put this together.

  Indeed, I would like to acknowledge the participation by the 
Governors of these various States, the donor States, and the small 
States, and their various highway representatives.
  So that was the nucleus, the engine that began to take this bill 
down.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I won't interrupt the Senator's speech, but I take 
this

[[Page S5404]]

moment to commend the Senator from Virginia. This has been a very 
vexing issue, and I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his very active participation. I 
feel a certain sense of achievement that this Senator from Georgia can 
go back now and say to his constituents at long last equity prevails in 
the distribution of our highway trust fund.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Did the Senator have a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Virginia has 
the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I wonder if we could get 5 more 
minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, you are just extending for 5 
more minutes?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. I have no objection.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. The Senator from Virginia is one of 
the managers of the bill and very much wants to accommodate other 
Senators.
  I understand the distinguished ranking member of our committee is 
about to have a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon, so I yield for 
that purpose and then thereafter would like to regain the floor for my 
speech.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Virginia for his graciousness.
  Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the ranking 
member regarding the Intelligence Transportation System Program.
  Would the Senator from Montana agree the policy in the program 
intended to encourage private sector investment should be implemented 
in a manner that does not interfere with ongoing technology, 
deployment, and system implementation in States that have already made 
a substantial investment in its tests and deployment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my very good friend, the Senator 
from Oregon, I strongly agree with the Senator. In States that have 
already made a substantial investment in intelligence transportation 
tests and deployment projects, nothing in this bill before us, the new 
TEA-21, the old ISTEA II bill, will interfere with ongoing deployment 
and system implementation in these States.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Montana. It is particularly 
important to encourage transportation innovation.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, referring to the bill, we have not 
discussed today the important strides made in safety of the traveling 
public. Nearly 440,000 persons a year, regrettably, lose their lives on 
highways and many more suffer incredible injuries. The bill includes 
four new and significant provisions which hold great promise to save 
lives.
  First, there is a new incentive program to give States funding based 
on each State's improvement in seat belt use. I want to particularly 
acknowledge the important contribution of public interest groups 
speaking on behalf of safety. Those groups indicated that this will 
greatly reduce highway deaths and injuries.
  Second, the conference report contains a new incentive grant program 
to reduce drunk driving by rewarding States who have passed .08 blood 
alcohol content law.
  Third, the conference report includes a new program to require States 
to adopt minimum penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders.
  I am privileged to say that was a conclusion that this Senator made 
after close consultation with many safety groups, and, indeed, 
acknowledgment should be to the other groups--restaurant groups and 
others who came in to see us on this issue. Statistics on drunk driving 
confirm that repeat drunk drivers represent one of the most significant 
parts of our tragedy on the highways today, as a consequence of 
alcohol.
  Fourth, another Senate provision requiring States to enact laws 
against open alcohol containers is included. Senator Dorgan was 
particularly interested in that, and he deserves much credit for 
bringing that to the Senate's attention.
  These four provisions, I believe, begin a new day in our efforts to 
improve the safety of our Nation's highways. The conference report 
contains a new title, championed by Senator Chafee, the distinguished 
chairman, and Senator Graham of Florida, to implement innovative 
financing techniques to leverage private dollars for transportation 
projects.
  The bill also recognizes the significant needs of our border States 
who have experienced significant transportation growth since the 
passage of NAFTA.
  There is a new $700 million grant program to meet the needs of our 
border States and those trade corridor States carrying significant 
traffic to those areas.
  Lastly, there is a provision in the conference report to provide $900 
million to replace the aging Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I wish to express 
my appreciation to my colleagues from Maryland and my colleague from 
Virginia, Mr. Robb, and, indeed, strong assistance from the House. 
Chairman Shuster was very supportive, as was Mr. Oberstar. While they 
did not put it in the House bill, they recognized I would have it in 
the Senate bill, and at a figure considerably above the request by the 
President.
  The President took a personal interest in this bridge and summoned a 
number of us to the White House, to a very important conference 
presided over by the Director of OMB and his senior staff. There was a 
general consensus at this conference that the $900 million was as much 
as we could achieve under this particular piece of legislation, 
recognizing that these dollars were in competition with the other 48 
States and Maryland and Virginia and, of course, the District of 
Columbia.
  Therefore, another piece of legislation will have to be carefully 
drafted by the White House, in consultation with the Governors of 
Maryland and Virginia and the representatives of the District of 
Columbia, to allocate the next financing package which could be as high 
as this one between the several States, notably Maryland and Virginia, 
and the District. I think they should bear a portion of it, and a 
further significant contribution, I presume the majority, coming from 
the Federal Government and how that would be financed. There were a 
number of schemes which I think were quite innovative and discussed, 
but I will leave it up to those drafters of the legislation to work out 
those details.
  I will be pleased, and, once again, together with our colleagues, to 
work towards passage of this legislation in a timely manner.
  Mr. President, I conclude my remarks on this bill, again, commending 
our distinguished chairman, Mr. Chafee, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Baucus--the three of us were the principal negotiators for the 
conference--and, again, paying great respect to my staff, and most 
particularly to this loyal one seated next to me, Ann Loomis.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the 
ISTEA conference report. I commend the work of the Conference Committee 
on the job it has done. This is landmark legislation. It represents the 
most substantial transportation legislation ever considered by the 
Congress. The bill provides much needed funds for both the construction 
and repair of our nation's roads, bridges and rails. This legislation 
will provide the additional resources for our states to meet their 
compelling transportation needs.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill preserves the concept of 
intermodalism. After completing the nation's interstate highway system 
several years ago, we decided in the ISTEA bill adopted in 1991 that 
transportation was not just about highway construction. We committed 
ourselves to investing funds in other modes of transportation, such as 
light rail, bus and ferries. If our nation is to move people and goods 
safely and efficiently in the 21st century, we must diversify our 
transportation system. This legislation continues on that course.
  We have also preserved our commitment to mass transit, which is 
extremely important in densely-populated states like Connecticut. I was 
particularly pleased to join Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes in a 
successful

[[Page S5405]]

effort to increase funding for mass transit by $2.4 billion dollars 
during deliberations between the House and the Senate conferees. I want 
to commend my two colleagues for their vigilance in this effort.
  This legislation also furthers environmentally-sound principles such 
as congestion mitigation, air quality improvement and alternative fuel 
technologies. I believe that energy-efficient and environmentally-
friendly means of transportation are not only possible, but essential 
if our nation is going to remain strong, competitive and 
environmentally healthy into the next century. In this regard, I am 
particularly pleased that the conference report retains the Senate-
passed level of funding for the development and deployment of maglev 
high speed rail. This is an extraordinary technology that can move 
people and goods on a fixed guideway at speeds of up to 300 mph. I 
believe that this mode of transportation can be to the 21st century 
what airplanes were to the 20th century, and trains were to the 19th--
namely, a dramatic step forward in safe, efficient and reliable 
transportation. I applaud Senator Moynihan for his stalwart efforts to 
support maglev technology.
  In summary, Mr. President, this is good and important legislation. It 
will improve transportation safety, reduce congestion, diminish 
pollution, increase efficiency and create jobs for the people of 
America. For these reasons, the conference report has my support. That 
is not to say, however, that this is a perfect piece of legislation. I 
have a number of concerns, as I know that my colleagues do, that I hope 
will be addressed as we go forward.
  I am disappointed that the conference report did not include the 
Senate provision that would penalize states if they failed to change 
the legal definition of intoxication to .08 nationally. Although I am 
pleased that the conference report contains incentives for states to 
move in this direction.
  I am also concerned that the bill offsets some of its spending with a 
reduction in expenditures for veterans in need of treatment for 
smoking-related illnesses. For years the United States military 
effectively encouraged active duty forces to smoke by providing them 
with free cigarettes. Therefore, it is only fair that the federal 
government bear its fair share of responsibility for treating veterans 
with illnesses contracted as a result of addiction to those cigarettes. 
I intend to work with my colleagues, including Minority Leader Daschle 
and Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller, to insure that as Congress 
continues consideration of tobacco legislation, we provide for the 
needs of our veterans.
  I am also concerned about the reduction in the Social Services Block 
Grant. This block grant is important to children and families of modest 
means throughout the country. We must not compromise on our commitment 
to provide better health care, child care and nutritional assistance to 
these needy Americans. As a member of the Labor Committee, I intend to 
work with members of the appropriations committees to made sure that we 
find the resources to provide for these families.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for our nation's economy, transportation is 
literally where the rubber hits the road. There are few things more 
important to my home State of Oregon or to the country's economy than 
how well we build and maintain our transportation system. 
Transportation is one of the basic ingredients in any economic growth 
recipe. It is one of the key things that businesses will look at as 
they consider where to locate.
  Both houses of Congress recognized this in passing bills to rev up 
transportation spending over current levels. Providing more money 
transportation money clearly helps keep us on the road to 
competitiveness and economic prosperity.
  But the transportation debate involves more than just economics, as 
important as that is, it's also about our quality of life. I've always 
believed that you can't have major league quality of life with minor 
league transportation systems. In the modern world, a transportation 
bill is about so much more than just how you get from point A to point 
B.
  Congress recognized this when we passed the original ISTEA 
legislation. For the first time, there was Federal recognition that 
decisions about where and how to build transportation projects can have 
tremendous impacts on our communities, our environment and our 
citizens' quality of life. Through ISTEA, we began to consider the true 
costs of our transportation spending as part of the process of planning 
transportation projects. And, for the first time, Federal funds were 
made available to mitigate the impacts of these projects throught the 
CMAQ and the Transportation Enhancements Programs.
  ISTEA recognizes that properly planned and constructed transportation 
systems are both economically efficient and environmentally sound.
  Badly designed or badly built systems waste taxpayer money and 
contribute to traffic congestion that snarls our highways. This causes 
both additional stresses for commuters and additional exhaust emissions 
that degrade the quality of our air.
  Both the Senate and the House bills continue many of these landmark 
initiatives of the original ISTEA legislation. These were clearly good 
first steps, but if we're going to improve both our transportation 
system and our quality of life, we need to do more than spin our 
wheels.
  Today, the Congress has recognized that the Federal government's role 
in funding transportation project also has ripple effects on patterns 
of development in our local communities. When it comes to 
transportation, if you build it, they will come and build around it.
  Uncontrolled development not only hurts our citizens where they live 
and breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. Several studies have 
come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly 
higher than more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show 
that taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility capital 
construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth 
management.
  Because of the major impacts Federally funded transportation projects 
can have, there is an appropriate role for the Federal government in 
ensuring these projects and the development they spawn are both 
economically and environmentally sound.
  That role should not be to embroil the Federal government in land use 
decisions that have historically been State and local issues. We don't 
want Federal zoning.
  Instead, the proper role for the Federal government is create 
incentives to encourage and build on the State and local efforts to 
address transportation and growth that are already underway. I am very 
pleased to report that the ISTEA conference report includes a program I 
proposed to help local communities grow in environmentally sustainable 
ways by creating incentives for local growth management.
  I greatly appreciate Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner and Senator 
Baucus working with me to include this program in the bill. Chairman 
Chafee and the other managers of the legislation also deserve enormous 
credit for how they have built on and reinforced the goals of the 
original ISTEA law. Thanks to their efforts the bill now before the 
Senate will enable our national environmental policies to merge more 
smoothly with our transportation policies.
  The new Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program 
provides $25 million per year investigate and address the relationships 
between transportation projects, communities and the environment. The 
Program consists of three parts:
  (1) a comprehensive research program;
  (2) a planning assistance program to provide funding to States and 
local governments that want to begin integrating their transportation 
planning with community preservation, environmental protection and land 
use policies; and
  (3) an implementation assistance program to provide funding to States 
and local governments that have developed state-of-the-art approaches 
to integrate their transportation plans and programs with their 
community preservation, environmental and land use planning programs.
  The research program will create a database on the experiences of 
communities in uniting transportation, community preservation, 
environmental and land use goals and decision making

[[Page S5406]]

processes. This research will also identify benchmarks for measuring 
the performance of communities' experiences. This information will be a 
valuable resource to help communities throughout the nation meet their 
future transportation needs with lower environmental impacts, improved 
transportation efficiency, lower infrastructure construction and 
maintenance costs, and in a way that is more responsive to the views of 
their citizens.
  The planning assistance provided by this program will mean additional 
financial resources to States and communities that wish to explore ways 
to integrate their transportation programs with community preservation, 
environmental and land use planning programs. Participants in this 
planning assistance program would be able to develop their own local 
approaches to meet their needs. And, as their programs develop, they 
could become eligible in the future for funding to help implement their 
locally developed solutions.
  Finally, for States and communities which already have established 
community preservation or land use programs, the program provides 
additional financial resources to enable them to carry out 
transportation projects that also meet community preservation, 
environmental and land use goals. In providing this assistance, the 
Secretary of Transportation is directed to give priority consideration 
to applicants that have instituted policies such as directing funds to 
high growth areas, urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan 
expansion, and ``green corridors'' programs.
  My home State of Oregon leads the nation in developing innovative 
approaches to manage our growth and to tie transportation policies in 
to growth management. Our statewide land conservation and development 
program requires each municipality to establish an urban growth 
boundary to define both the areas where growth and development should 
occur and those areas that should be protected from development. This 
system keeps agricultural and forest lands in productive use and 
preserves ``green corridors'' for hiking, biking and other recreational 
uses that are located in or close to urban areas. Our transportation 
planning and construction efforts reinforce these policies by not only 
avoiding developing in environmentally sensitive areas but also by 
helping make the areas where we want development to occur more 
accessible.
  Oregon recognizes that it's not enough to tell people where they 
can't build. For our system to work, we have to make it easier to 
develop the areas where we want growth to occur. And we don't just give 
lip service to this principle. We actually put our money where our 
mouth is to make sure the development we want occurs.
  The State of Oregon and METRO, the Portland area's regional 
government, are currently using $3 million of our Surface 
Transportation Program (STP) funds to develop housing and commercial 
properties around light rail stations. Our folks have even figured out 
how to use $3.7 million CMAQ air quality funds to help pay for 
sidewalks, light rail tracks and landscaping in these developments.
  These policies make the State of Oregon, METRO, the City of Portland, 
and other localities in our State ideal candidates to apply for 
implementation grants under the Transportation and Community and System 
Preservation Program.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Conference 
Report to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998 
(ISTEA). During this period of tremendous economic growth, I believe 
investing in the nation's transportation infrastructure should be one 
of our highest priorities. I am pleased to offer my support to the 
passage of this legislation.
  Mr. President, despite my support for the improvements in the 
transportational infrastructure that will occur as a result of this 
bill, I have strong concerns about one of the funding sources contained 
in this legislation. I do not believe that we should take money from 
veterans disability programs to be spent building roads. At a time in 
which the veterans hospitals in my state are experiencing budgetary 
shortfalls, I am troubled about transferring funds away from the 
Veterans Administration (VA). We in the United States have a long-
standing commitment to providing benefits and healthcare to those who 
have served our country in the Armed Forces. In my opinion we should be 
working to strengthen that commitment, not weaken it through budgetary 
slight of hand.
  The issue of providing compensation to veterans for tobacco-related 
illnesses is one which the Congress must take closer look at in the 
coming months. During consideration of the FY99 Budget Resolution, I 
voted in favor of an amendment that requires the Veterans 
Administration, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) to jointly study the VA General Counsel's 
determination regarding compensation for tobacco-related illnesses. I 
fully expect Congress will conduct a detailed examination of the 
results of this study and will engage in full debate before any change 
in permanent law is enacted. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of that 
debate, any savings as a result of a change in VA compensation policy 
should be redirected into VA health care and benefits programs, not 
into transportation infrastructure.
  Mr. President, despite my concern about this funding provision, I 
will vote in favor of this Conference Report because I believe today's 
investment in roads and transit systems lays the groundwork for 
economic growth for decades to come. The Senate's passage of this 
legislation will improve the safety of our roads, create jobs, spur 
economic activity and give more Americans a shot at the American Dream. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I join the majority of my 
colleagues today in expressing strong support for the conference report 
on H.R. 2400, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
reauthorization. As a member of the conference committee, I know the 
amount of time and effort that was put into developing this final 
agreement. I believe a fair compromise was reached among the wide 
variety of interests and between the House and Senate.
  This legislation represents a 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 
government, increased funding for highway safety, 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 want to get its 
``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each state's needs with the 
needs of the Nation.
  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 greatly. The strength of 
this legislation 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.
  In conclusion, I believe this is a good bill and deserves Senate 
approval. The quality of our Nation's transportation system is 
depending on it. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying the re-authorization of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act. While I support this legislation, I am 
disappointed that veterans programs were used to pay for a portion of 
this bill. Nonetheless, this bill

[[Page S5407]]

contains significant increases in funding for Maryland's highway and 
transit programs. I am proud to have worked with my colleague Senator 
Sarbanes to make sure Maryland got its fair share of funds for its 
transportation needs.
  With billions in needed maintenance and construction in the State of 
Maryland, this legislation will make our highways safer and expand 
transit options for our citizens. It will help to ease the flow of 
traffic on our major highways and byways and begin the long awaited re-
construction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
  This bill provides $900 million for a new Wilson Bridge, $500 million 
more than the Administration proposed last year. Although this does not 
represent the total cost of a new bridge, it is a first step toward 
replacement of the bridge. Let me make it clear, I do not consider this 
funding to be the end. I consider this to be the beginning. In future 
years, I will continue the effort to secure additional funding to 
complete the re-building of Wilson Bridge, a critical link on the I-95 
system and the only federally owned bridge in the system.
  Under this bill, Maryland will receive more money for its highway 
program than it gets now. Maryland can expect approximately $400 
million per year for its highway program--almost $90 million more than 
it gets now. This is almost a 30 percent increase in funding that will 
help improve the conditions of our highway system--which is one of the 
most congested in the nation. The Washington area has the second 
longest commute time in the nation. The funds authorized in this bill 
should help provide some much needed relief.
  The bill not only provides more funds for Maryland's overall highway 
program, it specifically targets funds for high priority projects 
around the State. The bill provides $26 million to upgrade Route 113 in 
Worcester County, one of the most dangerous highways in the State of 
Maryland. Every time I visit the Eastern Shore, I am always reminded 
about the need to upgrade this highway. Too many Marylanders have lost 
their lives on this stretch of roadway. This legislation will fund the 
first and most critical phase of this project to make the road safer 
for those who use it.
  Another major project that has desperately needed funds has been the 
I-70/I-270 interchange in Frederick. It is one of the only interchanges 
on the interstate system that does not meet interstate standards. It 
has been a safety hazard for years. The lack of an adequate interchange 
in the area has forced trucks off the interstate and into surrounding 
areas. This legislation will provide funding to complete the first 
phase of reconstruction and relieve the local community of this burden, 
while improving the safety of this section of highway.
  For the first time, almost $10 million will be earmarked for Route 32 
in Anne Arundel County in the vicinity of the National Security Agency. 
This highway is one of the most heavily traveled highways in the State 
and needs to expand capacity to accommodate the growth in the 
surrounding area.
  This legislation will also increase funding for the Appalachian 
Highway System. Maryland can expect to receive approximately $6 million 
per year for the next six years under this bill--that is enough to 
rebuild U.S. 220 in Allegany County. This is the number one highway 
priority for Western Maryland and a serious safety problem. This is $4 
million per year more than Maryland receives now. Thanks to this 
legislation, Maryland will have the funds to upgrade this highway.
  Mr. President, not only does Maryland receive more highway dollars, 
we receive more transit dollars. Maryland will receive almost twice as 
much federal funds for its transit programs. The MARC system will 
receive an additional $185 million and the Baltimore Light Rail System 
will receive $125 million to double-track the system. This will 
continue to expand transit opportunities for Marylanders and help 
relieve congestion on our highways.
  Mr. President, I do have one major reservation to this conference 
report. I believe it is just plain wrong that our veterans are being 
asked to sacrifice their compensation for our transportation needs. I 
made my feelings very clear when I voted in favor of an amendment to 
the Budget Resolution earlier this year that called on the Congress to 
protect veterans benefits. As the Ranking Member of the Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, I will look for way to ensure that 
these funds are replenished. Our vets, our heroes, deserve better and I 
will fight to correct this deep injustice.
  Despite my anger over the veterans offset, I will support this 
legislation because it is so important to improving the safety of 
Maryland's highways, byways and transit systems. Improving public 
safety and creating jobs are two of my highest priorities and this bill 
addresses both.
  Mr. ALLARD. Why does ISTEA allow the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to provide for earlier state 
implementation of the Commission's recommendations?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The bill clarifies that it does not affect EPA's 
authority to provide for state implementation of the agreements and 
recommendations set forth in the June 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission Report on a schedule consistent with the 
Commission's Report. This was a critical issue for the conferees. The 
conferees recognize that the Commission's Report was the product of 
several years of debate and analysis, and reflects broad consensus on 
control strategies and measures that should proceed with 
implementation. The conferees added specific language so as not to 
preclude the Administrator from providing for earlier state 
implementation of the Commission's agreements and recommendations, 
consistent with the implementation schedules in the Commission's 
Report.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss my support for the 
ISTEA conference report which I believe appropriately and rationally 
expands and improves our nation's transportation programs.
  Mr. President, this legislation is good news for Rhode Island, a 
state that unfortunately has some of the most significant 
infrastructure needs in our nation according to experts. Yet, many 
people might overlook the fact that this conference report also 
provides essential investments in our nation's mass transit programs. 
Indeed, I am pleased that the Banking Committee's transit title of the 
conference report contains $35 million for new capital transit programs 
in Rhode Island as well as $5.79 million for the purchase of urgently 
needed new buses by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. I want 
to personally thank Chairman D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes, 
particularly, for their assistance in addressing my state's transit 
priorities and their hard work in producing a very balanced transit 
program that will serve our country well.
  While there is much that is good in this bill, I am troubled by some 
of the budgetary offsets used to permit a higher level of 
transportation investment. Like many of my colleagues, I remain 
concerned that in order to accommodate essential infrastructure funding 
within the confines of strict budget caps, this legislation would 
endorse a plan to deny payments for veterans with service connected 
smoking-related illnesses. Indeed, earlier this year, I voted against 
this proposal, and I plan to work with like minded colleagues in the 
months ahead to see if we can reverse it. In addition, I am saddened 
that the ISTEA bill no longer contains a tougher national standard for 
driving under the influence of alcohol. All too often we hear of 
another senseless death due to drunk driving. A tougher standard for 
blood alcohol content or BAC would have been an excellent deterrent in 
the fight against drunk driving tragedies, and I regret that the 
Senate's strong support for this standard did not prevail in 
negotiations with the House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, like many pieces of legislation, this bill is not 
perfect. However, repairing my state's roads and bridges; ensuring that 
thousands of mass transit riders in Rhode Island continue to receive 
service; and improving safety on our roads; are worthwhile goals that I 
hope all my colleagues support.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate 
consideration of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
bill, the so-called ISTEA bill.
  This bill sets priorities and funds for surface transportation 
projects and

[[Page S5408]]

programs for the next six years. It is the product of many months of 
negotiations between the House and the Senate and between Members on 
both sides of the aisle. We have managed to come together on this bill 
by compromise and a willingness to listen to all points of view for the 
good of the nation and the States.
  As ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, I can tell you that 
the provisions in the Commerce Committee title of the bill were the 
product of intense negotiations for many weeks. But the way to judge 
our efforts is the result and I am proud of what has been achieved.
  We have provisions to strengthen the safety of motor vehicle air bags 
and to allow States to design programs to raise the percentage of their 
citizens who use seat belts. In addition, we have given the Secretary 
of Transportation the flexibility to design additional commercial motor 
vehicle safety programs. We have authorized a program to provide funds 
for the development of rail and intermodal projects. These programs 
will allow us to expand the nation's infrastructure. Most importantly, 
the bill contains funds to replace our crumbling bridges and roads. 
Together these programs will provide our citizens with safer bridges 
and roads and additional infrastructure will allow our citizens to 
compete in the world market.
  Commerce Committee provisions also address the needs of recreational 
boaters and anglers. The bill extends the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 
and recovers a greater portion of the federal fuel taxes paid by 
boaters and anglers. In addition, Commerce Committee provisions ensure 
that funds are available to make boating safer, more accessible, and 
environmentally cleaner for the 76 million Americans--more than one-
fourth of the nations's population--who go boating each year. Finally, 
the bill extends programs to restore and protect sportfish resources 
and strengthens efforts to introduce segments of the American public . 
. . especially our youth . . . to the healthy fun of fishing and 
boating.
  I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Commerce Committee 
for their efforts on behalf of this bill, and indeed, on behalf of all 
of us.
  Mr. President, I urge passage of this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
conference report to the Intermodal Surface Transportaton Efficiency 
Act (ISTEA). I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss the benefits 
of this legislation for my home state of Illinois.
  This conference report is truly historic. It makes the largest 
investment to date in our nation's aging infrastructure, $216 billion 
over the next six years. In short, this conference report increases the 
State of Illinois' total ISTEA dollars and provides greater 
flexibility. It goes a long way toward improving the conditions of 
Illinois' roads and bridges, properly funding mass transit in Chicago 
and downstate, alleviating congestion, and addressing highway safety 
and the environment.
  The bill provides $175 billion over six years for highways, highway 
safety, and other surface transportation programs. Illinois has the 
third largest Interstate system in the country; however, its roads and 
bridges are rated as the second worst in the nation. The State can 
expect to receive about $5.3 billion over six years from the highway 
formula. That's nearly a 30 percent increase or $1.2 billion more than 
the ISTEA of 1991.
  Major reconstruction and rehabilitation projects like Downtown 
Chicago's Wacker Drive and the Stevenson Expressway (I-55) will be able 
to move forward thanks, in large part, to this legislation. The 
conference report designates $25 million each for both of these 
priority projects. In addition, both the Stevenson Expressway and 
Wacker Drive projects will be able to compete for federal funds through 
certain discretionary programs.
  The conference report also includes funding for over 100 high 
priority projects from throughout the State worth more than $375 
million.
  Mass transit funding is vitally important to the Chicago metropolitan 
area as well as to many downstate communities. It helps alleviate 
congestion and provides access for thousands of Illinoisans everyday. 
The conference report includes $41 billion over six years for mass 
transit. Illinois can expect to receive about $2.5 billion over six 
years, a 67 percent increase or $1 billion more than the 1991 ISTEA.
  The conference report authorizes the Chicago Transit Authority to 
expand the capacity of the Ravenswood Brown Line and fully funds the 
rebuilding of the Douglas Branch of the Blue Line. It also will help 
METRA expand Northeastern Illinois' commuter rail system by double-
tracking and extending service into rapidly growing areas. The Metro 
Link light rail system in St. Clair County will have the ability to 
complete an extension from East St. Louis through Belleville Area 
College to MidAmerica Airport under the conference report. The transit 
provisions will also help transit authorities throughout the State 
purchase and upgrade buses and bus facilities.
  The conference report also includes $150 million per year for the 
Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Grants program. This program will 
assist communities in filling the gaps in transit service that prevent 
welfare recipients from finding and keeping the jobs they need to 
remain self-sufficient.
  Congress also has made a commitment to high-speed passenger rail, a 
safe, cost-effective means of transportation, in this conference 
report. With increased funding, it is my hope that the Midwest can 
develop an effective transportation system.
  This legislation also preserves and expands some important 
environmental and enhancement programs, including the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. CMAQ's goal is to help 
states meet their air quality conformity requirements as prescribed by 
the Clean Air Act. The conference report increases funding for CMAQ by 
18 percent. Illinois can expect more than $1 billion over six years 
under the program. The report also fully funds transportation 
enhancement activities, such as bicycle pedestrian facilities and 
historic preservation.
  Illinois is one of 15 states that has been responsible enough to pass 
a .08 legal blood-alcohol concentration level for drivers. The State 
has had .08 BAC since July of 1997 and we are already beginning to see 
positive results. Unfortunately, the conference committee did not 
include language that would have sanctioned states that refused to pass 
.08 BAC legislaton. Instead, Illinois and other states who have passed 
.08 will receive as much as $6 million per year in highway safety 
incentives.
  I am pleased that the conference report extends the current excise 
tax exemption for an important Illinois product--corn-based, renewable 
ethanol fuel--through 2007. Farmers and the ethanol industry must have 
the ability to plan for the future. Extending the incentive gives them 
the tools necessary to expand their operations and this important 
industry while improving the environment and decreasing our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Mr. President, I know this conference report is not a perfect 
document. Illinois' highway formula should be higher. I will work with 
the Administration to ensure that Illinois competes for and receives a 
fair share of discretionary transportation funds available as a result 
of this conference report. With the passage of this legislation, 
Congress has upheld its obligation to reauthorize and improve our 
nation's important transportation programs. I am pleased to support 
this measure.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would like to engage the Chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator D'Amato in a colloquy regarding a Pennsylvania mass 
transit project. It is my understanding that the project under the 
transit new start program entitled ``Philadelphia-Pittsburgh High Speed 
Rail'' is intended to be for initial planning, design and engineering 
costs for a high speed magnetic levitation public transportation system 
in Pennsylvania. Having ridden such a system in Germany in January of 
this year, I believe a system of this nature will revolutionize the 
steel industry and could provide an excellent means of mass transit in 
the 21st Century.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I concur with my colleague's understanding that the line 
item he described is intended to make available Federal Transit 
Administration funds for initial costs of a high speed maglev system in 
Pennsylvania. It is my understanding that these funds

[[Page S5409]]

will be applied for by an existing transit system or state agency in 
accordance with traditional requirements for FTA grants.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Congress finally completed its work on a 
six-year bill to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act today. This bill has been a long time coming. I'm 
pleased that Wisconsin will now have a chance to address our state's 
vital transportation needs for the next year and plan its priorities 
for the next six years. This bill moves Wisconsin a long way toward 
achieving fairness in Federal transportation spending, and I cannot 
overlook this dramatic step forward.
  While the bill is not perfect and includes a number of items I would 
not support individually, it goes a long way toward ending Wisconsin's 
decades-long legacy as a donor state. Historically, Wisconsin's 
taxpayers have received about 78 cents for every dollar we have paid 
into the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, we have lost more than $625 
million since 1956. Under this bill, Wisconsin will receive 
approximately 99 cents for every dollar it contributes to the Highway 
Trust Fund, beginning next year. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin's 
delegation in achieving a greater measure of fairness for Wisconsin's 
taxpayers. On this travel weekend that many believe will be the biggest 
in history, the people of Wisconsin should be happy to see that their 
tax dollars will be used to improve Wisconsin's roads and rails.
  Finally, I urge the President to use his line-item veto authority to 
strike the pork-barrel spending projects inserted into the House 
reauthorization bill and included in this conference report. We should 
allow states and localities to decide on how best to address 
transportation needs. The Senate decided to use more than $2 billion on 
block grants to states instead of earmarks for particular projects. I 
am certain that Wisconsin, and other donor states, could have reached 
even greater equity had the House followed the Senate's lead.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would first like to thank the 
managers of Conference Report. Both Senators Chafee and Baucus have 
worked day and night trying to produce a fair and balanced Conference 
Report. They have done their best to try to accommodate my views. We 
did not always agree on every issue, but they both tried to work with 
me and engage in a constructive dialogue when we differed.
  I would also like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, Senator Warner. He put in a substantial effort to try to 
create a consensus that would satisfy the need for this critical 
legislation.
  And I would like to thank Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes for their 
diligence and hard work on the mass transit title. Because of their 
commitment, this bill represents a balanced transportation bill.
  Mr. President, I offer some comments to indicate my specific views on 
how this good bill will help my State of New Jersey. As a member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I have been working on the 
ISTEA reauthorization bill this entire Congress. I have been fighting 
for increased investment in our nation's infrastructure, a balanced 
transportation system and critical safety programs.
  Overall, on balance, this is a good bill--good for the country and 
good for New Jersey. It includes $173 billion for highways and $41 
billion for mass transit nationally over six years. As the Ranking 
Democrat on the Budget Committee, I worked hard to increase mass 
transit funding by almost a third compared to the 1991 ISTEA bill. 
Overall, this translates to over $4 billion to New Jersey for highways 
and over $2 billion for mass transit over the six year life of this 
bill. As a result, New Jersey will receive an increase of over $1 
billion in transportation funding as compared to the 1991 ISTEA bill.
  Mr. President, the ISTEA bill, like any bill that provides funding to 
the States, became a battle between regions. Western Senators argued 
that their needs were greatest because of the sheer miles of highways 
in their states. Southern Senators suggested that they had population 
growth and they needed increases. The so-called donor states were 
pushing a ``minimum allocation'' that would revise the formula that 
prevailed over the past six years.
  Mr. President, obviously, I pushed hard for increased investment in 
my region and my state. The Northeast states face tremendous 
infrastructure needs over the next six years. Since we are the oldest 
region in the country with the highest density and greatest volume of 
traffic, our infrastructure needs are great. This problem is compounded 
by harsh weather conditions, intense congestion and air quality.
  Mr. President, I didn't get everything I wanted for New Jersey. 
However, this bill does provide substantial increases in funding for 
New Jersey for highways and mass transit. It also includes funding for 
over 40 highway and mass transit projects for my state. I fought to 
keep all of the my colleagues in the House of Representatives' projects 
in the final bill. The Senate bill originally did not include any 
special projects, but I am pleased that a few of them were included in 
the Conference Report at my request. The first project is an emergency 
heliport on Cooper Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, which will speed up 
rapid emergency service for hospital patients in the region. I am also 
pleased with funding to construct a roadway network using the former 
Bergen Arches rail corridor going from east to west in Hudson County, 
New Jersey. The Bergen Arches project will provide congestion relief 
and will allow the demand for development of the Hudson County 
waterfront--the so-called ``Gold Coast''--to move at its rapid pace.
  Mr. President, anyone who is familiar with my work in the Senate 
knows that I don't relent when it comes to standing up for my 
constituents and my state. I feel my responsibilities to the people who 
sent me here as a sacred obligation and I would never agree to anything 
that is detrimental to our needs.
  Mr. President, this legislation is all about compromise. And this 
Conference Report is not perfect for my state, but, in the end, the 
substantial increases in highway and mass transit funding will reduce 
congestion, increase productivity, clean the air, and improve the 
quality of life so I will support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I must note to my colleagues that the 
procedure that has been used here on the floor today for consideration 
of this conference report is outrageous.
  Despite the process followed here, I intend to vote for this bill, 
based on the representations about Michigan's share of highway funds 
made in the incomplete charts provided by the Conference Committee. I 
ask unanimous consent that those charts be placed in the Record 
following my statement. The best judgement I can exercise at this point 
is to support the apparent increases provided to my state. According to 
these charts, Michigan will receive an annual average of $825 million 
per year from the Highway Trust Fund, an increase of $310 million over 
the ISTEA I average. Our percentage return on the dollars distributed 
will rise from approximately 84% to 90.5% and is guaranteed to go no 
lower. And, our share of the total funds going to the states will 
increase from approximately 2.87% to 3.16%, close to the Senate bill's 
mark.
  If the factual matter in those charts proves to be inaccurate, I, and 
I am sure my donor state colleagues, will seek corrective action.
  Michigan and the nation are making some significant progress with the 
passage of this bill. We are now going to spend all or nearly all our 
gas tax dollars on transportation, rather than leaving them in the 
Highway Trust Fund. That means we are going to start addressing the 
serious backlog of infrastructure projects that are vital to our 
economy and quality of life.
  I understand the report contains a minimum guarantee provision 
similar to that in the Senate bill, though the ``guarantee'' has been 
reduced to a 90.5% return on dollars distributed rather than the 91% 
the donor states were promised. Still, this is some incremental 
progress for my state, but Michigan will continue to be a substantial 
donor state and continue sending money to the donee states. We will 
continue pressing at the next opportunity for more equity, particularly 
on transit when that title is reauthorized in two years. But, for the 
moment, we can declare a minor victory.

[[Page S5410]]

  While I appreciate the conferees', particularly Senator Warner's, 
attention to the donor states' needs, I am concerned by one particular 
provision. Apparently, the report includes an item that could 
drastically reduce the minimum guarantee funds to states if revenues 
increase by more than 25% over a 1998 baseline. This provision has no 
place in this bill, particularly since the total amount authorized and 
distributed by this bill is projected to rise by approximately 25% over 
the next six years, assuming current CBO projections. Its inclusion 
undermines the ``guarantee'' and the promise that the Senate conferees 
made to the donor states, since we could be disproportionately hurt. I 
intend to examine this provision closely and will work with the other 
donor states to change this provision if it proves harmful to us.
  I am pleased that the conferees have included a number of important 
provisions in the report, including a provision similar to one I 
authored in the Senate's bill enhancing local transportation officials 
participation in the preparation of the states' transportation 
improvement program. Also, the international trade corridor number 18, 
which includes I-69 and I-94, is designated as high priority. 
Ambassador Bridge access projects are made eligible for Federal 
funding. The State of Michigan will receive $10 million in FY99 and 
$13.5 million in FY2000 for buses and bus facilities in a block grant 
for distribution around the State. Numerous other important projects 
are identified all over the State, from an Intelligent Transportation 
System technology project in Lansing, to Monroe Rail Consolidation, to 
the South Beltline in Grand Rapids, to renovation and rehabilitation of 
the Detroit Waterfront, to upgrading 3 Mile Road in Grand Traverse 
County, to upgrading H-58 in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore., etc.
  This is not a perfect bill. But, it is another step on the long, long 
road toward equity. When I started in the Senate, we were getting 
somewhere around $.75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 ISTEA bill 
brought us up to approximately $.80 per dollar, and the conference 
report before us should get us to about $.83. Some day, Michigan 
taxpayers will get back 100% of the gas taxes they pay into the Highway 
Trust Fund in the form of better roads and bridges and well-maintained 
infrastructure. But, only if we keep fighting.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the charts printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     1998-2003 AVERAGE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              1992-97
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                                                                           Change
                                                    No Fed Lnds     Conference        Change         (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................................        $330,263        $530,516        $200,254            60.6
Alaska..........................................         211,782         311,860         100,078            47.3
Arizona.........................................         255,665         407,814         152,149            59.5
Arkansas........................................         262,738         345,860          83,122            31.6
California......................................       1,653,208       2,406,992         753,784            45.6
Colorado........................................         200,562         305,526         104,965            52.3
Connecticut.....................................         352,409         397,475          45,066            12.8
Delaware........................................          72,136         115,793          43,656            60.5
Dist. of Col....................................          92,099         103,543          11,445            12.4
Florida.........................................         768,360       1,208,600         440,240            57.3
Georgia.........................................         541,389         918,804         377,416            69.7
Hawaii..........................................         126,276         135,502           9,225             7.3
Idaho...........................................         124,765         202,009          77,244            61.9
Illinois........................................         682,070         885,171         203,101            29.8
Indiana.........................................         405,583         617,387         211,804            52.2
Iowa............................................         220,296         314,609          94,313            42.8
Kansas..........................................         208,439         306,678          98,239            47.1
Kentucky........................................         283,524         454,508         170,983            60.3
Louisiana.......................................         264,022         416,163         152,141            57.6
Maine...........................................         117,516         137,753          20,237            17.2
Maryland........................................         306,872         394,884          88,012            28.7
Massachusetts...................................         829,663         487,827        -341,836           -41.2
Michigan........................................         512,012         825,390         313,378            61.2
Minnesota.......................................         280,096         392,423         112,328            40.1
Mississippi.....................................         202,321         318,954         116,633            57.6
Missouri........................................         404,352         618,094         213,742            52.9
Montana.........................................         161,357         259,879          98,523            61.1
Nebraska........................................         142,245         203,318          61,072            42.9
Nevada..........................................         117,280         189,707          72,428            61.8
New Hampshire...................................          88,260         135,135          46,875            53.1
New Jersey......................................         518,499         675,702         157,203            30.3
New Mexico......................................         178,066         258,702          80,635            45.3
New York........................................         997,644       1,351,299         353,655            35.4
North Carolina..................................         478,837         740,665         261,828            54.7
North Dakota....................................         116,031         171,517          55,486            47.8
Ohio............................................         654,795         896,635         241,839            36.9
Oklahoma........................................         259,338         403,573         144,236            55.6
Oregon..........................................         212,782         318,875         106,093            49.9
Pennsylvania....................................         889,759       1,305,731         415,972            46.8
Rhode Island....................................         105,925         155,943          50,018            47.2
South Carolina..................................         232,252         416,425         184,173            79.3
South Dakota....................................         119,210         187,116          67,906            57.0
Tennessee.......................................         365,555         592,731         227,176            62.1
Texas...........................................       1,174,785       1,887,940         713,155            60.7
Utah............................................         129,854         204,967          75,113            57.8
Vermont.........................................          79,354         119,693          40,339            50.8
Virginia........................................         414,572         670,755         256,183            61.8
Washington......................................         341,068         467,856         126,789            37.2
West Virginia...................................         209,742         296,261          86,519            41.3
Wisconsin.......................................         351,960         521,277         169,317            48.1
Wyoming.........................................         114,900         181,934          67,034            58.3
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Apportioned...............................     18, 162,486      26,173,771       8,011,286            44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                             CONFERENCE AGREEMENT 1998-2003 AVERAGE
                                                                                     (Dollars in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                            High
                        State                            IM/NHS          STP         Bridge         CMAQ          ADHS       Rec Trails       Metro       priority       Minimum     Grand total
                                                                                                                                            planning      projects      Guarantee
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................       193,305       131.151        68.092         7,720        40,691           875        20,080        32,429        54,172       530.516
Alaska..............................................       100,630        59,687        23,069        14,558  ............           557           937        12,004       100,419       311,860
Arizona.............................................       191,283       109,866         9,923        21,938  ............           786         3,003        11,392        59,632       407,814
Arkansas............................................       139,412        93,043        41,869         7,828  ............           822           937        20,964        40,986       345,860
California..........................................       868,672       595,027       287,607       286,908  ............         2,890        28,793       153,738       183,358     2,406,992
Colorado............................................       139,193        85,562        29,747        16,111  ............           772         2,688        11,333        20,120       305,528
Connecticut.........................................       103,869        71,079        68,300        52,588  ............           549         2,779        23,281        75,032       307,475
Delaware............................................        49,537        31,989         9,462         7,803  ............           580           917         1,505        14,079        11,794
Dist. of Col........................................        42,152        27,219        20,375         6,640  ............           435           937         7,303           483       103,543

[[Page S5411]]

 
Florida.............................................       475,719       323,906        84,881        39,689  ............         1,603        11,507        50,121       221,174     1,208,800
Georgia.............................................       365,725       242,869        67,878        28,982        16,262         1.137         3,687        44.618       147,645       918,804
Hawaii..............................................        48,343        31.217        24.243        78.616  ............           492           937         8,916        13,739       135,502
Idaho...............................................        92,018        44,392        10,745         8,861  ............           704           937         7,460        36,893       202,009
Illinois............................................       338,679       215,077       125,655        82,271  ............         1,112         9,586        65,036       47,7454       885,171
Indiana.............................................       263,848       165,802        48,191        16,398  ............           800         3,044        33,`67        86,138       617,387
Iowa................................................       134,786        82,661        55,629         7,009  ............           675         1,086        17,751        15,035       314,809
Kansas..............................................       125,928        90,878       851,818         6,892           744         1,152        28,575        18,576        10,693       306,678
Kentucky............................................       178,599       107,979        43,214        10,814        37,328           752         1,444        23,503        50,877       454,508
Louisiana...........................................       149,949        99,265        85,303         7,542  ............           981         2,519        31,048       398,555       416.163
Maine...............................................        51,481        32,650        24,652         7,545  ............           716           937         8,639        13,473       137,753
Maryland............................................       145,061        94,797        47,040        41,899         6,363           578         4,049        23,149        31.447       394,884
Massachusetts.......................................       134,571  ............        98,623        48,525  ............         1,466         6,572        54,354        92,668       825,390
Michigan............................................       297,325       225,858        98,623        48,525  ............         1,466         6,572        54,345        92,668       825,390
Minnesota...........................................       165.774       116.267        30,524        16,792  ............         1,183         2,681        31,066        28,136       392,423
Mississippi.........................................       124,401        85,645        51,049         7,384         4,563           762           937        17,828        26,384       318.954
Missouri............................................       234,608       153,494       116,148        19,531  ............           926         3,146        42,664        47,576       618,094
Montana.............................................       130,719        47,227        20,729         8,764  ............           619           937         3,378        47,457       259,879
Nebraska............................................        94,889        55,922        32,731         6,778  ............           548           937         6,982         4,530       203,318
Nevada..............................................        87,742        45,315        10,220         8,428  ............           568         1,000         5,928        30,476       189,707
New Hampshire.......................................        49,298        31,834        18,715         7,765  ............           597           937        11.-31        14.958       136,135
New Jersey..........................................       185 163       127,709       186,451        81,462  ............           911         7,496        50,721        35,789       675,702
New Mexico..........................................       133,720        57,446        11,108         7,969  ............           767           937        13,310        33,444       258,702
New York............................................       344,690       248,343       363,260       147,345         8,770         1,187        15,960       100,490       121,256     1,251,299
North Carolina......................................       263,436       184,568       105,315        15,545        23,958         1,007         2,841        40,008       103,988       740,665
North Dakota........................................        96,450        38,754         8,961         7,380  ............           520           937         3,555        14,951       171,517
Ohio................................................       345,443       216,389       125,594        56,658        18,349         1,145         7,527        56,789        68,740       896,635
Oklahoma............................................       162,956       116,331        60,520         7,366  ............           720         1,531        20,775        33,374       403,573
Oregon..............................................       132,439        80,005        46,655        10,295  ............           762         1,606        25,211        21,903       318,875
Pennsylvania........................................       335,854       216,673       365,828        90,210        99,496         1,211         8,149       102.863        86,446     1,205,731
Rhode Island........................................        53,801        34,742        26,377         9,902  ............           490           937         4,121        25,568       155,943
South Carolina......................................       164,303       116,212        43,752         8,266         1,996           765         1,613        17,432        62,088       416,425
South Dakota........................................        92,598        43,756        12,707         7,574  ............           529           937        10,382        18,633       187,116
Tennessee...........................................       227,838       139,481        69,917        14,466        45,620           831         2,508        37,519        54,552       592,731
Texas...............................................       770,056       518,203       155,804        79,376  ............         1,893        12,858        84,066       265,684     1,887,940
Utah................................................       100,086        49,936        13,716         8,302  ............           678         1,492        13,278        17,480       204,967
Vermont.............................................        47,356        30,580        18,115         7,459  ............           559           937         3,676        11,011       119,693
Virginia............................................       256,791       171,557        84,025        31,696         9,589         1,170         4,330        35l074        76,522       670,755
Washington..........................................       172,083       115,039        87,530        24,836  ............           909         3,635        32,864        30,960       467,856
West Virginia.......................................        71,859        47,396        67,752         7,089        56,580           576           937        31,030        12,943       296,261
Wisconsin...........................................       213,290       144,587        34,428        20,638  ............         1,096         2,787        28,376        76,075       521,277
Wyoming.............................................       112,230        30,436         9,003         7,424  ............           597           937         5,001        16,306       181,934
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportioned.........................................     9,799,958     6,321,791     3,652,595     1,515.150       369,563        44,348       187,367     1,166,667     2,758,000    28,173,771
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                    1998-2003 AVERAGE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT (REVISED)
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1992-97                                   1992-97                     1992-97
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                                                            No Fed Lnds   Conference
                                           No Fed Lnds   Conference      Change        Change        (share        (share      No Fed Lnds   Conference
                                                                                      (percent)     percent)      percent)     (HTF Ratio)   (HTF Ratio)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................      $330,263      $530,516      $200,254          60.6        1.8184        2.0269         0.824         0.918
Alaska..................................       211,782       311,860       100,078          47.3        1.1660        1.1915         5.026         5.136
Arizona.................................       255,665       407,814       152,149          59.5        1.4077        1.5581         0.818         0.905
Arkansas................................       262,738       345,860        83,122          31.6        1.4466        1.3214         1.005         0.918
California..............................     1,653,208     2,406,992       753,784          45.6        9.1023        9.1962         0.896         0.905
Colorado................................       220,562       305,526       104,965          52.3        1.1043        1.1673         0.869         0.918
Connecticut.............................       352,409       397,475        45,066          12.8        1.9403        1.5186         1.948         1.525
Delaware................................        72,136       115,793        43,656          60.5        0.3972        0.4424         1.385         1.542
Dist. of Col............................        92,099       103,543        11,445          12.4        0.5071        0.3956         4.034         3.147
Florida.................................       768,360     1,208,600       440,240          57.3        4.2305        4.6176         0.829         0.905
Georgia.................................       541,389       918,804       377,416          69.7        2.9808        3.5104         0.768         0.905
Hawaii..................................       126,276       135,502         9.225           7.3        0.6953        0.5177         2.700         2.011
Idaho...................................       124,765       202,009        77,244          61.9        0.6869        0.7718         1.257         1.412
Illinois................................       682,070       885,171       203,101          29.8        3.7554        3.3819         1.026         0.924
Indiana.................................       405,583       617,387       211,804          52.2        2.2331        2.3588         0.857         0.905
Iowa....................................       220,296       314,609        94,313          42.8        1.2129        1.2020         1.053         1.043
Kansas..................................       208,439       306,678        98,239          47.1        1.1476        1.1717         0.998         1.019
Kentucky................................       283,524       454,508       170,983          60.3        1.5610        1.7365         0.814         0.905
Louisiana...............................       264,022       416,163       152,141          57.6        1.4537        1.5900         0.828         0.906
Maine...................................       117,516       137,753        20,237          17.2        0.6470        0.5263         1.243         1.011
Maryland................................       306,872       394,884        88,012          28.7        1.6896        1.5087         1.014         0.905
Massachusetts...........................       829,663       487,827      -341,836         -41.2        4.5680        1.8638         2.485         1.014
Michigan................................       512,012       825,390       313,378          61.2        2.8191        3.1535         0.809         0.905
Minnesota...............................       280,096       392,423       112,328          40.1        1.5422        1.4993         1.087         1.057
Mississippi.............................       202,321       318,954       116,633          57.6        1.1139        1.2186         0.844         0.923
Missouri................................       404,352       618,094       213,742          52.9        2.2263        2.3615         0.866         0.918
Montana.................................       161,357       259,879        98,523          61.1        0.8884        0.9929         1.864         2.083
Nebraska................................       142,245       203,318        61,072          42.9        0.7832        0.7768         0.975         0.967
Nevada..................................       117,280       189,707        72,428          61.8        0.6457        0.7248         1.013         1.138
New Hampshire...........................        88,260       135,135        46,875          53.1        0.4859        0.5163         1.196         1.271
New Jersey..............................       518,499       675,702       157,203          30.3        2.8548        2.5816         1.037         0.938
New Mexico..............................       178,066       258,702        80,635          45.3        0.9804        0.9884         1.135         1.144
New York................................       997,644     1,351,299       353,655          35.4        5.4929        5.1628         1.266         1.189
North Carolina..........................       478,837       740,665       261,828          54.7        2.6364        2.8298         0.843         0.905
North Dakota............................       116,031       171,517        55,486          47.8        0.6388        0.6553         1.785         1.831
Ohio....................................       654,795       896,635       241,839          36.9        3.6052        3.4257         0.952         0.905
Oklahoma................................       259,338       403,573       144,236          55.6        1.4279        1.5419         0.851         0.918
Oregon..................................       212,782       318,875       106,093          49.9        1.1715        1.2183         0.889         0.925
Pennsylvania............................       889,759     1,305,731       415,972          46.8        4.8989        4.9887         1.184         1.206
Rhode Island............................       105,925       155,943        50,018          47.2        0.5832        0.5958         2.131         2.177
South Carolina..........................       232,252       416,425       184,173          79.3        1.2787        1.5910         0.727         0.905
South Dakota............................       119,210       187,116        67,906          57.0        0.6564        0.7149         1.846         2.010
Tennessee...............................       365,555       592,731       227,176          62.1        2.0127        2.2646         0.804         0.905
Texas...................................     1,174,785     1,887,940       713,155          60.7        6.4682        7.2131         0.812         0.905
Utah....................................       129,854       204,967        75,113          57.8        0.7150        0.7831         0.839         0.919
Vermont.................................        79,354       119,693        40,339          50.8        0.4369        0.4573         1.684         1.763
Virginia................................       414,572       670,755       256,183          61.8        2.2826        2.5627         0.806         0.905
Washington..............................       341,068       467,856       126,789          37.2        1.8779        1.7875         0.962         0.915
West Virginia...........................       209,742       296,261        86,519          41.3        1.1548        1.1319         1.440         1.411
Wisconsin...............................       351,960       521,277       169,317          48.1        1.9378        1.9916         0.966         0.993
Wyoming.................................       114,900       181,934        67,034          58.3        0.6326        0.6951         1.366         1.501
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Apportioned.......................    18,162,486    26,173,771     8,011,286          44.1      100.0000      100.0000         1.000         1.000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S5412]]

                          urban core colloquy

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Banking 
Committee. Mr. President, the ISTEA conference report includes language 
that reauthorizes a very important mass transit project in my state. 
The New Jersey Urban Core project provides critical links in a rail 
system that is the backbone of the transportation system of the 
Northeast and the nation. The Urban Core project links all of New 
Jersey's rail lines and builds new ones where necessary, to establish 
one comprehensive and coordinated rail transportation system within the 
state.
  Mr. President, the Conference Report makes a number of changes to the 
authorization of this important project. The report adds new projects 
as elements of the Urban Core and makes a number of critical changes. 
The conference report is silent on the future of full funding 
agreements. Do the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking 
Committee, who authored the Mass Transit title to the next surface 
transportation authorization bill, agree that it is important that the 
Secretary and the State of New Jersey enter into full funding grant 
agreements sometime in the next six years, for those elements of the 
Urban Core that can be demonstrated to be under construction by 
September 30, 2003? Is it your intention to urge the Secretary to work 
with the State of New Jersey over the next two years to sign full 
funding grant agreements?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey that the Urban Core is an important mass transit 
project that serves millions of people every day and demonstrates every 
day the importance of mass transit to our national transportation 
system. I also believe that the Secretary should work with the State of 
New Jersey during the next few years to provide assistance to those 
elements of the Urban Core that will move ahead in the next six years.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I concur with the Chairman of the 
Banking Committee's statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Banking Committee for their support for the New Jersey Urban 
Core, and for their support for mass transit nationwide. They are true 
champions of investing in a sound and balanced transportation system.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to support final passage of 
the conference report on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). I commend my colleagues who have 
worked so hard on this bill, Senator Chafee, Senator Warner and Senator 
Baucus, Senator Domenici and Senator D'Amato.
  This has been an incredibly difficult process. Whenever you have to 
divide resources among competing interests there is going to be 
friction. The conferees on this legislation have done an admirable job 
in balancing these competing interests in the name of our shared 
national interest in safe, efficient highways.
  This highway and transit reauthorization is important for the country 
and for my state of Utah. Utah needs this bill and I am happy that we 
can deliver it to them. Like a lot of states, Utah has a number of 
crucial infrastructure improvements needed in our highway and transit 
systems. Unlike other states, however, Utah must complete a number of 
these projects in time for the 2002 winter Olympic Games.
  This bill makes clear that the federal government has a 
responsibility to assist my state of Utah make the transportation 
improvements needed to successfully host the 2002 Games. By including 
language which gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to 
give priority consideration for Olympic host cities, the Congress has 
acknowledged that these really are America's Games.
  I also applaud the members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for crafting a formula which recognizes the fact that there 
has been a population shift to the west and that a federal highway 
funding formula must accommodate the rapid growth in western states.
  There are a number of important projects authorized in this 
legislation. I am pleased that we were able to bring a number of 
earmarked demonstration projects up to an appropriate level. Utah is 
growing quickly both in population and vehicle miles traveled. These 
projects, all part of the state's transportation improvement plan, will 
make a real difference in a number of rural counties.
  Finally, I wish to commend all the members of the Utah delegation. We 
are a small delegation, but we are a strong delegation and when we work 
together, as we have all done relative to this legislation, we are an 
effective delegation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are now asked to vote on a bill 
authorizing the expenditure of more than $200 billion. No member of the 
Senate other than a handful of conferees has seen a copy of the bill; 
no one knows anything about its major policy implication.
  The Senate bill allowed each state's money to be spent as each state 
determined. This bill included hundreds of Congressionally designated 
projects in both the highway and mass transit accounts. Although the 
earmarked Washington state projects were all appropriate in the highway 
category, the mass transit title did not treat my state fairly. The 
Regional Transit Authority, perhaps the most cost-effective project in 
the nation, was less fairly treated than projects abandoned by the 
communities for which they are authorized.
  Even more importantly, the general highway fund distribution formula 
discriminates unfairly against Washington state. It returns to us a 
lower percentage of our motor vehicle fuel taxes than does present law, 
the original Senate bill, or the House bill. Our conferees in the 
Senate did not represent us well.
  The bill is full of pork and unfair. I will vote against it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to explain 
my concerns about the conference report on the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
  I want to first say that I was pleased to be able to vote for the 
Senate bill in March. This bill will continue the important work that 
was begun under the first ISTEA. It represents a comprehensive package 
to address all transportation needs. It continues the fundamental goal 
of the original ISTEA, which is to afford state and local governments 
greater flexibility in allocating transportation dollars.
  I believe that 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.
  I also want to thank all the people in Minnesota who have educated me 
along the way on transportation issues. 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. Though some may have questions about this or that 
provision, all of these people support ISTEA.
  ISTEA will guarantee that a federal investment will be made in 
maintaining and expanding Minnesota's highways, transit and other 
transportation related 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.
  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 process. The 
planning provisions of the bill put the major decision-making back at 
the local level where it belongs. In addition, the conference report 
contains language that allows for appropriate meaningful public 
participation in the MPO process. While the

[[Page S5413]]

MPO process has worked well, this new language will make the process 
that much more responsive to the communities that are most affected by 
their decisions.
  Unfortunately despite these facts, I cannot vote for this conference 
report for a number of reasons. First, the conferees have reportedly 
selected major offsets that I strongly oppose. While we do not have all 
the details, I believe the bill assumes $15.5 billion in savings from 
denial of compensation claims by veterans with smoking-related 
illnesses. The veterans health cuts are especially troubling. I believe 
it is an outrage that funding that could have gone to meet the many 
pressing needs of this country's veterans, will instead be used as an 
offset for spending in this bill.
  For years, veterans have been told that cuts to the Veterans 
Administration (VA)--and particularly cuts to veterans health care--
were necessary to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. Last 
year's balanced budget agreement flatlined the VA budget over six 
years. It provided virtually no allowance for medical inflation, which 
in years past has come to roughly $500 million per year.
  But Congress can no longer pretend that its failure to provide for 
veterans' programs is a lack of resources. First of all, the budget is 
now balanced. Indeed, this year we have a projected surplus of 
somewhere in the range of $50 billion. Second, in this case Congress is 
taking resources away from veterans themselves. If Congress insists on 
denying benefits to veterans who were hooked on smoking during their 
military service, there is no excuse for transferring those savings 
outside the VA.
  I can think of a lot of areas in the veterans budget where we could 
have put those savings to good use. For example, I have a bill to 
provide compensation for veterans who were exposed to radiation during 
their military service. I've been told these atomic vets cannot be 
compensated because offsets would have to come from elsewhere in the VA 
budget. Yet this ISTEA bill seizes upon an enormous offset from that 
very VA budget and dedicates those funds to transportation.
  We could certainly provide more resources for veterans health care, 
which is facing a severe funding crisis. Without additional funding the 
VA health care system will ``hit the wall,'' VA Undersecretary for 
Health Dr. Kenneth Kizer has testified.
  This particular offset makes a mockery of the Senate's professed 
concern for veterans and for deficit reduction. I have real doubts 
about the various estimates of savings from denial of smoking-related 
claims. I know others do as well. Nobody knows how much VA will save by 
denying these benefits to veterans. But the conferees have apparently 
opted for the highest possible number.
  This offset makes very clear what some of us have long suspected. The 
reason veterans programs have been cut in recent years is not deficit 
reduction. It's not for the purpose of balancing the budget. It's not 
because full funding would require a tax increase.
  It's none of those things. It's because this Republican Congress 
places a lower priority on veterans than on other areas of the budget. 
We cannot get around that fact. Congress would rather use these savings 
elsewhere.
  Whether we like it or not, the legislation we pass in this body makes 
it very clear what our priorities are. I, for one, think we need to 
reorder those priorities. I think we need to put more emphasis on the 
needs of working families. And in this case, I think we need to put a 
lot more emphasis on veterans who have faithfully served their country.
  I will also vote no on this bill, as much as I believe in its goals, 
because of the way it attempts a resolution on an historic land use 
dispute in my State regarding the management of the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness, without adequate Congressional consideration or 
debate. Congressmen Bruce Vento and James Oberstar this week reached a 
last-minute, independent agreement on a proposal to change future 
management of the BWCAW. The proposed agreement would re-open two 
portages in the BWCAW to motorized transport in return for closing two 
small, pristine wilderness lakes to future motorized use.
  I regret that this agreement was reached in this way, at the last 
minute in the House-Senate conference committee, without having been 
debated by either the House of Senate. As I have said elsewhere, I 
would have preferred an open, fair, public Congressional debate on my 
legislation, patterned after Minnesota mediation proposals, and the 
major alternatives offered by my colleagues. I remain convinced that my 
compromise plan was a viable one which carefully balanced the interests 
of all parties. I do not think that last-minute private deals like this 
one are an appropriate way to conduct policy, especially on a major 
issue which has so divided our stated. Such deals do nothing to improve 
Minnesotans' confidence in the fairness of the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I want to reiterate my support for the overall 
objectives of this legislation. I believe 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.
  It is therefore with deep regret that I will be voting against this 
conference report. I believe that we could have done much better and 
produced a bill that continued federal support for transportation and 
transit infrastructure without the problems that this bill has created.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to give my warmest thanks to 
the leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which 
I proudly serve, for the hard work and dedication that led us to 
present the Conference Report on the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century, also known as ISTEA II.
  I ask if the distinguished chairman of the Committee, Senator Chafee 
of Rhode Island, would respond to a question.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to respond to a question from the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. This conference report has provided 
important funding to preserve a bridge in California. This bridge is 
not just any bridge. It is the bridge that is a symbol for my state and 
it is a national treasure. The Golden Gate Bridge is truly a jewel in 
California. It frames California as our Pacific Gateway. I believe many 
Americans would agree it is one of our nation's most magnificent 
architectural treasures.
  But, Mr. President, it is also highly vulnerable to earthquakes. We 
need to protect it. We have a 1.2 billion program in the Bay Area to 
protect our bridges from earthquakes. This seismic retrofit and new 
construction is being paid for entirely by state revenues and by tolls 
paid by our motorists. The Golden Gate, however, is not a state bridge. 
It is not a Federal bridge. It is owned by the Golden Gate Bridge and 
Highway Transportation District which collects the tolls and operates a 
local mass transit service. Consequently, the bridge, this treasure, 
needs additional funds in order to pay for a $217 million program to 
protect the bridge from earthquakes.
  I am so pleased that Senator Chafee and my colleagues on the 
conference committee heeded our pleas for help on this project and 
provided $51.75 million for the retrofit program. That amount includes 
$25 million from the Bridge Discretionary program.
  I ask the chairman if it is his understanding that the Golden Gate 
Bridge is eligible for additional funding from the discretionary bridge 
program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the Senator from California is correct, the Golden 
Gate Bridge is eligible for additional discretionary funding from this 
program. I wished that the conference could have done more to earmark 
funding, but the earmark provided was not intended to limit any 
additional discretionary grants for the bridge.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CHAFEE. As the Senate considers the conference report for the 
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, I want to take a 
moment to discuss the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program 
that is part of this bill.
  The DBE program was designed to ensure that all Americans have the 
opportunity to compete for the many billions of dollars in contracts 
that will

[[Page S5414]]

flow from this legislation. The program, which has been in place since 
1982, has proven both necessary to and effective in our efforts to 
remedy discrimination in transportation procurement markets. By 
reauthorizing the DBE program again this year, Congress has signaled 
its belief that the evidence remains clear: we need this program if we 
are to remove the continuing barriers confronted by minority- and 
women-owned businesses.
  Let me take a moment to share with my colleagues additional 
information that has come to light since the two chambers last 
considered the DBE program. A disparity study conducted for the 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and released in April 
found that there was a disproportionately small number of women- and 
minority-owned contractors participating in Colorado's transportation 
construction industry. The study showed that African-Americans received 
none of the state-funded highway construction contracts over $500,000. 
Hispanic firms received less than one-half of one percent (.26%), and 
women-owned businesses were awarded less than one-quarter of one 
percent (.18%). The vast majority of contracts--more than 99 percent--
went to firms owned by white men. The authors found that a significant 
disparity existed between what minority contractors actually received 
and what they might be expected to receive in the absence of 
discrimination.
  The Colorado study also demonstrated that the DBE program has worked 
in leveling the playing field for women- and minority-owned firms. It 
notes that ``only when a DBE program has been in effect, has there been 
any significant dollar amounts utilized with [minority-/women-owned] 
firms.''
  The fact of the matter is that discrimination continues to plague 
minority- and women-owned firms in America. Congress has a strong and 
compelling interest in remedying this situation; and in the DBE 
program, we have had and will continue to have an effective tool.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Rhode 
Island that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has been an 
effective part of the highway program. It's given construction 
companies owned by women and minorities a seat at the table.
  I also believe that the program is constitutional. Under the Supreme 
Court's Adarand decision, affirmative action programs like the DBE 
program must pass two tests. The first is that the program serve a 
compelling interest. The lower court decision in the Adarand case held 
that there is such a compelling interest. The Senate debate reinforced 
this point. There was discussion of discrimination in the construction 
industry, and of statistics showing the underutilization of women- and 
minority-owned businesses in that industry, such as evidence of 
dramatic decreases in DBE participation in those areas in which DBE 
programs have been curtailed or suspended.
  There also was discussion of the second test, whether the program is 
narrowly tailored. As I explained in my statements during debate on the 
McConnell amendment, I believe that the program is narrowly tailored, 
both under the current regulations and the new regulations, which 
emphasize flexible goals tied to the capacity of firms in the local 
market, the use of race-neutral measures, and the appropriate use of 
waivers for good faith efforts.
  As I said during the Senate debate, the DBE program is fair. It is 
necessary. And it works. I am pleased that, in rejecting amendments 
that would have undermined the DBE program, the Senate has reaffirmed 
its commitment to equal opportunity.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I want to associate myself with the remarks by my friend 
and colleague from Montana regarding the constitutionality of the 
program. This is an important matter, and I appreciate his comments. I 
hope our colleagues will find all of this information of interest.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the amount authorized 
under this section for the DART North-Central Light Rail Extension 
shall be no less than $188 million.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, in addition, I understand the federal share of the 
Full Funding Grant Agreement executed by the Department of 
Transportation for this project shall be $33 million.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct, and I thank the Chairman for his 
support in this matter.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my 
appreciation to Senators on both sides of the aisle, in particular my 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for all their 
work in crafting the new six-year transportation bill that is before 
us. A great deal of the credit must go to Senator Chafee and his staff, 
especially Jimmie Powell, for their tireless efforts in crafting a 
compromise bill that resolves a good number of contentious issues.
   Mr. President, this highway bill reaffirms many of the revolutionary 
principles established by ISTEA in 1991. Like ISTEA, it provides broad 
and substantial support for all modes of surface transportation, 
including transit. It funds important maintenance, safety, and air 
quality needs as well as the construction of new infrastructure. As the 
product of difficult House-Senate negotiations, this compromise bill 
does not include every policy that I would have liked. Yet the bill 
represents a sound and reasonable basis for strong transportation 
policy over the next six years, and I support it.
  Finally, let me clarify one provision in the bill. A provision I 
drafted provides funding for the development of a rail trail in Winsted 
and Winchester, Connecticut. This provision should be read to include 
the development of the trail in Torrington, Connecticut, as part of 
this project. The trail will provide residents with access to trails in 
Barkhamsted and Canton, Connecticut.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while I am very pleased with the 
allocations for Pennsylvania, I am voting against the ISTEA conference 
report because the offsets hit the veterans' accounts so hard.
  I compliment House of Representatives Chairman Bud Shuster and Senate 
Chairman John Chafee on their extraordinary diligence and 
accomplishments as lead negotiators on this mammoth bill. I work 
closely with them in Pennsylvania's infrastructure's needs and I thank 
them for the accommodations on Pennsylvania's roads, bridges and mass 
transit systems.
  In seeking total offsets of $17.7 billion, the veterans' accounts 
have been hit for $15.367 billion and 86.8% of the total offsets. As 
the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a chief advocate 
for veterans' interests, I believe this is excessively disproportion.
  There is an additional $25 billion in the highway trust fund. I am 
advised that $25 billion will yield approximately $6 billion in 
interest over the next six years. Those funds could have been used for 
the offset or at least part of the offset; or other funds could have 
been found for a part of the offset.
  Accordingly, I register this protest vote.
  My concern for this veterans' offset is consistent with my position 
during consideration of the FY '99 Budget Resolution when I opposed 
this large offset in the veterans' accounts. I shall work to try to 
recoup these offsets from the veterans' accounts as we move forward in 
the appropriations process.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In July of 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency 
promulgated final rules that set new National Ambient Air Quality 
standards for fine particle air pollution, known as PM2.5. The 
standards require three years of monitoring data to be collected before 
determining whether an area is meeting the standards.
  It is my understanding that under the Clean Air Act, Governors are 
required to submit designations for attainment, nonattainment and 
unclassifiable areas within their states within 120 days but no later 
than 1 year following promulgation of a new or revised standard. The 
EPA is then required to promulgate designations within two years of the 
issuance of such final standards.
  For the July 1997 PM2.5 standard, this schedule poses a problem. 
Monitors are not yet in place and three years of monitoring data will 
not be available to permit Governors and the EPA to determine whether 
an area is or is not in attainment. Therefore, the Clean Air Act would 
require EPA to take the meaningless step of designating areas as 
unclassifiable in July of 1999 on the basis that three years of PM2.5 
monitoring data are unavailable.

[[Page S5415]]

  Mr. INHOFE. That's correct. But the Senate included an amendment in 
this bill that addresses this problem. Under this amendment, for the 
July 1997 PM2.5 standards, EPA would no longer be required to designate 
areas regarding their PM2.5 attainment status in July of 1999.
  Instead of the designation schedule currently in the Clean Air Act, 
this amendment would establish the following requirements for PM2.5 
designations: Section 4102 would extend the time for Governors to 
submit designations for the July 1997 PM2.5 standard until one year 
after receipt of three years of monitoring data.
  Rather than the two year period normally provided by the Clean Air 
Act, under section 4102(d) of this amendment, EPA would not be required 
to promulgate nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable designations 
for PM2.5 areas until one year after the Governors are required to 
submit the designations or until Dec. 31, 2005, whichever date is 
earlier.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference agreement on ISTEA now before 
the Senate, which will appropriately be entitled ``The Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century'', is a magnificent accomplishment for 
those of us who have labored many long months to achieve the enactment 
of this truly monumental highway bill. Today is the day that we have 
all been hoping for lo these many months. Today is the day Congress 
will send to the President a 6-year ISTEA reauthorization act that 
truly keeps faith with the American traveling public. In adopting this 
conference report, the Senate will make two profoundly important 
statements to the American traveling public. First, we are telling the 
American public that we are finally prepared to guarantee that the 
revenues collected at the gas pump will indeed be spent for the purpose 
for which they are collected; namely, the maintenance, upkeep, safety, 
and expansion of our national highway and transit systems. Second, we 
are telling the traveling public that we are determined to reverse the 
Federal Government's chronic underinvestment in our national highway 
needs.
  We are about to send to the President a highway bill calling for a 
full $216 billion in transportation investments over the six years, 
1998 through 2003. Of that amount, $173 billion is provided in contract 
authority for our national highway system.
  Senators will recall that the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1993 assessed a new 4.3 cents gas tax, solely for the purpose of 
deficit reduction. That 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 for transportation investments. 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 this 4.3 cents gas tax from the general fund to its 
rightful place in the Highway Trust Fund so that it could be used to 
help meet our ever-growing unmet needs in the area of highway 
construction and maintenance, as well as to rebuild the thousands of 
unsafe and overburdened bridges throughout the nation. In my view, the 
Federal Government has, for too long, held its head in the sand while 
our Federal investment in our nation's infrastructure declined, both as 
a percentage of our gross domestic product. As such, I was poised to 
offer my amendment to transfer the 4.3 cents tax into the Highway Trust 
Fund throughout the summer of 1996. At the behest of both the majority 
and minority leaders, I deferred offering my amendment on two separate 
tax bills. Unfortunately, another opportunity to offer my amendment did 
not arise during the 104th Congress.
  During debate on the budget resolution last year, Senator Gramm 
offered a Sense-of-the-Senate amendment 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 amendment. Later that year, when the Finance Committee 
marked up the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, it was Senator Gramm, who is 
a member of that committee, who 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.

  Transferring this new revenue to the Highway Trust Fund was crucial, 
because it gave Congress the opportunity to authorize and commit 
dramatically increased resources on our National Highway System. 
Unfortunately, however, even with this new revenue coming into the 
Highway Trust Fund, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported 
a highway bill on October 1, 1997, that failed to authorize even 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. I found these figures to be grossly 
unacceptable. Senator Gramm and I did not successfully champion the 
transfer of the 4.3 cents into the Highway Trust Fund so that the 
revenue would sit in that Trust Fund, unspent. There was no question 
that these funds were sorely needed on our Nation's highways. I have 
taken to the Floor numerous times over the 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 deficient or functionally 
obsolete.
  Following the Environment and Public Works Committee's action, I held 
several discussions on the subject with members of the committee, 
including Chairman Chafee, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus. As a 
consequence of these discussions, I prepared an amendment to the 
highway bill to authorize the spending of 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 regarding 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 meant what we said when we 
placed these additional highway tax revenues into the Highway Trust 
Fund.
  I was pleased to have as the very first cosponsor of the amendment I 
had prepared my very good friend and 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. Senators 
Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and I diligently sought to obtain cosponsors for 
our amendment. In total, we were able to secure an additional 50 
cosponsors, making a total of 54 cosponsors for the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-
Warner amendment.
  Our amendment authorized additional contract authority for highways 
over the period Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003, totaling $30.971 
billion. At the time we introduced our amendment, that amount was the 
Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the revenue from the 3.45 
cents 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 re-estimated 
that five-year figure to a level of $27.41 billion, or a reduction of 
$3.561 billion from their earlier forecast.
  During Senate debate on the highway reauthorization bill, 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 Domenici and Chafee, who opposed this 
approach. This division was causing a delay in Senate consideration of 
the ISTEA bill, a delay that

[[Page S5416]]

made all Senators uncomfortable, since we faced the May 1 deadline 
beyond which most states could not obligate any federal aid highway 
funds absent a new authorization bill. The fact is, that the May 1 
cutoff of highway obligation authority is still in effect and is a 
major reason why it is so critical that Congress get this legislation 
to the President's desk before the Memorial Day Recess. Ultimately, in 
an attempt to break the Senate deadlock on the highway bill, the 
majority leader, Mr. Lott, asked that all parties join him in his 
office for negotiations on this issue. And so, Senator Gramm, Senator 
Baucus, Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, Senator Domenici, Senator 
D'Amato, and I did join with the majority leader to discuss the 
situation. After several days of back and forth discussions, under the 
very adept moderating style of the majority leader, I was pleased that 
an agreement emerged that resulted in an amendment to the then-pending 
highway bill totaling $25.920 billion in additional highway spending. 
That amount represented 94 percent of CBO's most recent estimate of the 
revenue to the highway account, stemming from the 4.3 cents gas tax.
  On a matter that was of critical importance to me, the negotiated 
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 6-year ISTEA bill, for the 
Appalachian Regional Highway System equaled $2.19 billion, the full 
amount requested by the administration in their ISTEA proposal. Back in 
December--or January, rather, of 1997, I had met with the President 
with the goal of convincing him of the importance of completing the 
Appalachian Highway System. The completion of these highways were 
promised to the people of Appalachia more than 32 years ago. But as we 
enter the new millennia, we find that our Interstate Highway System is 
almost 100 percent complete while the Appalachian Highway System 
remains less than 78 percent complete. In my home State of West 
Virginia, we lag behind the average for the region. Our segments of the 
Appalachian Highway System are only 73 percent complete. I was pleased 
that, following our meeting, the President saw fit to include $2.19 
billion for the Appalachian Highway System in his ISTEA reauthorization 
proposal. While this amount would not serve to complete the Federal 
contribution toward the system, it represented a substantial boost to 
the system and sent a signal to the entire Appalachian region that we 
are serious about completing these corridors. So the proposal also 
provided for the Appalachian States to be able to draw down contract 
authority from the trust fund in order to complete their Appalachian 
corridors.
  The $26 billion included in our amendment not only allowed for a 
boost to the Appalachian Highway System, it provided for substantial 
increases in highway funding for all 50 States and many other national 
highway initiatives. Perhaps, most importantly, it closed the 
substantial funding gap that existed in the total amount of funding in 
the Senate highway bill and the highway bill under consideration in the 
House of Representatives. It paved the way for a less contentious and 
more amicable conference. Put simply, by bringing the additional $26 
billion to the table, our amendment better enabled the conferees to 
include many critical initiatives in the conference agreement--
initiatives that might otherwise have been left out of our Federal 
Aid Highway program for the next 6 years.

  This conference agreement includes an historic increase in the 
overall level of investment in our Nation's highways, a 44 percent 
increase over the levels authorized in the original ISTEA legislation 
for the years 1992 through 1997. The agreement includes a total of 
$2.25 billion for the Appalachian Highway System. Within that amount, 
West Virginia can expect to receive roughly $345 million to aid in the 
completion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Elkins and Corridor D in 
the Parkersburg area. The bill also includes specific earmarks for 
several high priority projects throughout the State. These include: $50 
million for West Virginia Route 10 from Logan to Man and $22.69 million 
for the continued construction of the Coalfields Expressway in Southern 
West Virginia.
  Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their diligent efforts in 
reaching this historic agreement. I especially commend chairman Chafee 
and chairman Warner, as well as Senator Baucus, who have spent untold 
hours in negotiations with the House conferees in an effort to reach a 
fair and balanced conference agreement. I also commend chairman Shuster 
for his splendid efforts on the House side in chairing this very 
difficult conference and for bringing it to a successful conclusion in 
such an expeditious manner. Further, I want to especially commend my 
own Congressman, Representative Nick Rahall of the Third District of 
West Virginia in which my voting residence is attained. He served as 
one of the leaders of the House conferees and has been a stalwart ally 
in the effort to guarantee the American people that their gas taxes 
will be spent on our Federal highways. His wisdom and his experience 
have made West Virginia and the Nation proud.
  I also compliment the many members of staff--for example Jim English 
and Peter Rogoff--who have worked diligently over these many, many 
months, as a matter of fact, in helping to bring this historic bill to 
fruition. I must thank, again, both leaders, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott, 
for their support of the legislation. I thank all Senators who have 
participated one way or another in the working out of this agreement. 
And, again, I compliment and thank Mr. Shuster and the Members on the 
House side.
  It was a difficult bill. It was a difficult battle and a difficult 
conference.
  I close by thanking once more, Senator Gramm of Texas for his 
splendid leadership, for his unfailing courage, for his high dedication 
to the passage of this bill, and also for his determination to do 
everything possible to see to it that the moneys the American people 
spent on the gas tax when they fill their fuel tanks go into the 
highway trust fund and are spent on highways. I thank him for joining 
with me in seeing to it that the amendment which would provide for the 
expenditure of those trust fund moneys on highways and bridges was 
implemented. This was the goal that we sought. We thought it was right. 
We thought that it was being honest with the American people.
  I don't think I could have had a better supporter and compatriot and 
colleague in this effort than Senator Gramm. He is, indeed, a very able 
Senator, and has one of the brightest minds I have seen in my 40 years 
in this Senate. I salute him and express my gratitude for his steadfast 
support and his encouragement that he gave to me and to others of us 
who worked together in this matter.
  This conference agreement represents a remarkable accomplishment, 
long sought by the American people and those of us who are fortunate 
enough to represent them. I commend all those whose efforts have 
brought us to this historic day.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia not only for his comments, but also for his 
untiring work on this very important legislation. He is to be 
commended. I thank all of our colleagues for their work and their 
contribution on the highway bill. But I assure everyone in this country 
that were it not for the senior Senator from West Virginia, this bill 
would not have been passed in this body this afternoon and be part of 
one of the most massive improvements of our transportation system in 
this country. He is to be commended. I know there are so many people 
that are not here today that want to say thank you to the very 
distinguished Senator for his contribution in this regard.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Louisiana. I thank 
him for his kind words, and I thank him for his support all along the 
way which greatly helped us in bringing this legislation to its 
fruition. I thank him again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the conference report. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.

[[Page S5417]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. BREAUX. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers), 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Ford), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Gorton
     Kyl
     Roth
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bumpers
     Ford
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Torricelli
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the submission 
introduction of S. Res. 36 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Senate Concurrent and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Breaux pertaining to the introduction of S. 2121 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

                          ____________________