[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.
____________________