Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I want to ruminate about this concept of quotas and goals. First of all, nobody likes quotas. They are rigid, they are unforgiving, they are almost insulting. The DBE program does not use quotas; it uses goals. Now, some say the goal is 10 percent, 15 percent, or 20 percent, or what not; so is it really a goal? To be honest with ourselves here, it is a goal, but it does have a number associated with it. For example, the number is 10 percent. Some States ask for a lower goal--not a quota, but a lower goal. Some States are granted those lower goals. Some States ask for higher goals and they are granted those higher goals. Some States say, ``Our goal is going to be 10 percent,'' and lo and behold, it turns out that the disadvantaged business enterprise program does not meet 10 percent, it is a lower percent. That has happened in a couple of States. In 1996, in Arizona and in Alaska, the goal was 10 percent, but those two States did not reach the 10 percent goal. In Alaska, it was 8.6 percent. In Arizona, it was 8.9 percent. You might ask: What happened? Why didn't those States meet their goals? As far as I know, nothing has happened, which is further evidence that this is not a quota; it is just a goal. We all know that goals are important. We know that if we want to achieve something, it is good to have a goal. If you don't have goals, often we slip, we rationalize, and things fall between the cracks and they don't happen. Sometimes it is helpful to have numerical dates or to quantify your goals, again, to help assure that you reach them, like benchmarks. We all know that sometimes quantifying a goal helps make it happen. In this case, we are not talking about a rigid goal. It is a goal that has a lot of flexibility to it in a lot of different ways. I was a bit bemused when I heard Senators chafing at this concept of goals, I guess the same way Senators resist unanimous consent agreements. A unanimous consent agreement is a kind of a goal. It is a statement that, within 2 hours we are going to vote or something, or within an hour and a half we are going to do something else. We have to have limits sometimes to make something happen. Look at newspapers. Newspaper reporters know they have a deadline to get the paper out. So if we do want greater inclusion of minority groups participating in highway contracting, and if we want more women enterprises to participate in highway contracting, it is good to have a goal to help make that happen. That is what we are attempting to do here. It is not unconstitutional because it is very flexible. It has a lot of give. I might say that the proposed regulations that the Department of Transportation is working on and, in fact, will probably finalize in a couple of months, make the program even more narrowly tailored. For example, the regulations include further emphasis on good-faith efforts. All a contractor has to show is good faith, not a numerical number. Also in the proposed regulations is a broad waiver allowing States to come up with their own program that will replace the Department of Transportation's program if the State can show that its own program will effectively redress discrimination. That is a broad waiver. In addition, the proposed regulations would add a net worth cap. That is, if your net worth exceeds a certain amount, you are not eligible, even if you are a woman or a minority. So all those statements about the Sultan of Brunei are irrelevant. The proposed regulations make it very clear that the Sultan of Brunei, with all his palaces and gold- plated Rolls Royces, and so forth, would not even begin to be eligible for the DBE Program. I might say that it is not only the Sultan of Brunei; it is a bunch of other folks whose net worth is significant and who should not be part of the DBE Program. So the basic point is, again, that this is very narrowly tailored, it is flexible, it is based on good faith efforts. It is not a quota. And the proposed regulations will be even more flexible and narrowly tailored, with more emphasis on good-faith effort.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I note Senator Kennedy is on the floor. He has been over here many times seeking to speak. I yield to the Senator 15 minutes. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from California on the floor. She would like to address the McConnell amendment. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is not the words of the Supreme Court.

Mr. BAUCUS. Just so that the people watching know what the facts are here, I was going to ask the Senator, is that quote on that chart the Supreme Court statement, or is that not the Supreme Court statement-- that quote?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, also would like to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has brought a very valuable addition to the NEPA process. Most of us, when we deal with the National Environmental Policy Act with respect to projects, believe that the policy is right; that is, that environmental alternatives should be considered fully. But we also experience delays, sometimes so long that we begin to wonder, what is going on here? Is there a better way of doing this? All of us have been there. This is the very first very serious effort to try to solve that problem; that is, on the one hand, keep the protection of the National Environmental Policy Act, which I think we all want --this Senator certainly does--but, on the other hand, make sure that the process is streamlined so that it doesn't take quite so long, so the decisions can be made, and so there is a little more confidence amongst the public in what these various agencies are attempting to do. It is simple. It just makes the review process not sequential but concurrent. It should have been concurrent in the first place. Second, it sets up a schedule of review at the start that the agencies must agree on so each agency knows kind of what it is doing first, if that is the theory, and, beyond that, it sets up a consultation process when there is disagreement among the agencies. But it is a very good amendment. In fact, I think that this is going to go a lot further--the effect of this amendment--and help many, many more people than is realized. We often have these grandiose amendments and bills around here, and they sound like they are going to do a lot and end up not doing much at all. This is a little bit the opposite. It is the process; it is streamlining. Some may think that it is not a big deal, but it will be a big deal--a huge deal--certainly if it is implemented in the spirit in which the amendment is intended--and I expect that will be the case. As a consequence, we public servants will be serving our people a little bit better than we would have otherwise. I compliment the Senator very much on his amendment. It is a very good idea. I thank him for it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Moseley-Braun and Wyden be added as original cosponsors to the Chafee amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. In fact, I agree with the chairman and say that if he is not here by 1:45, it would only be fair to the rest of the Senate that time be charged against him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are operating under an agreement that the Senator from Kentucky was to begin debating his amendment at 12:30. That was 35 minutes ago. I know that the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, and myself very much want to help the Senator from Kentucky by finding time for him to debate this amendment--offer it and debate it. We reached this agreement with the Senator from Kentucky some time ago, over an hour ago, that he would be here at 12:30 to offer the amendment. The chairman has been so very gracious in accommodating Senators right and left and from all parts of the country to exercise their rights. I inquire as to where might our tardy Senator be, or when is he going to be here?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Gallatin Land Consolidation Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined in this introduction by my fellow members of the Montana delegation--Senator Burns and Congressman Hill. The Gallatin Act is a bipartisan bill that is the culmination of years of hard work and unheralded cooperation between the Montana delegation, local communities, conservation and user groups, and all levels of government. The consolidation of this area makes sense on many levels. In the Gallatin area, the Act will consolidate the historic checkerboard ownership that has muddied the waters of land management for years. This bill will establish logical and effective ownership and management of these lands. In the long run, consolidation will substantially reduce the cost to the Forest Service--and ultimately the taxpayer--of managing the Gallatin National Forest. By eliminating this checkerboard ownership pattern, the bill improves public access to Forest Service lands and reduces the disputes that currently arise over the proper location of property lines. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will protect these areas so that our children can enjoy them just as we do. The checkerboard ownership pattern invites sprawling subdivisions. Whether those occur across the Taylor Fork, or north in the Bangtails, the effect is the same. The Forest Service lands will be diminished in value for wildlife and recreation as every other section of land is developed. This checkerboard development would also diminish the pristine vistas that make this area so special. By consolidating these lands, we can protect recreational opportunities, wildlife herds, our famous fisheries, and the area's beautiful scenery. While consolidation benefits the entire Gallatin area, in the Taylor Fork alone, the benefits are awe-inspiring. This area is critical winter range for elk and moose and helps to sustain the largest contingent of grizzly bears in the lower forty-eight states. The conservation of the Taylor Fork, the Gallatin roaded area, and the Bangtails will allow for the continued historic uses that define the character of Montana such as hunting, grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat protection. I would like to take a minute to thank the Montana delegation for their hard work that has led to introduction of this Act. I also want to recognize and applaud the efforts of all the folks in Montana who have been instrumental in crafting this consolidation. Local conservation and wildlife groups in Bozeman and in Butte have worked long and hard to ensure that this bill protects the fisheries and wildlife that make these lands unique. In response to their suggestions, we have crafted the bill to ensure that the public will be involved in planning the timber-for-land component of this exchange. In response to their suggestions, we have also provided for a fair and public process to determine the management direction for the acquired lands, and have included a restoration program to improve the environmental health of these lands. Together, these changes will ensure that these lands will be enjoyed by sportsmen and by all Montanans for generations to come. And I would like to thank those in the timber industry who have worked to ensure that this exchange will protect Montana mills. The Independent Forest Products Association, who represents many of Montana's small mills has been ever vigilant to ensure that the Forest Service small business provisions are respected. In that vein, I would especially like to thank Al Kington, whose last-minute advice allowed us to craft the bill to provide extra protection for Montana's small mills. I would also like to thank those who have worked so hard to ensure that the Taylor Fork is protected. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has worked tirelessly to raise funds to purchase one of the sections in the Taylor Fork. Local land owners including the Kelsey's of the 9\1/4\ Circle Ranch and the Patton's of the Black Butte Ranch and the other members of the Upper Gallatin Community, helped with those efforts and have been vocal advocates for conserving these lands for all Montanans. I would also like to thank Gallatin County Commissioners Jane Jelinksi, Phil Olson and Bill Murdock. My staff met with the commissioners individually and as a group as we crafted this exchange. I appreciate their input and look forward to working with them in the future. Big Sky Lumber, the private party to this exchange has negotiated the terms of this agreement in good faith. They have provided a number of concessions to make this exchange more responsive to public concerns. These include agreements to providing public recreation access across their lands, protecting viewsheds in the Bridger Canyon area, and providing options to local landowners to allow them to purchase some of these lands following the exchange. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank two public employees, Bob Dennee with the U.S. Forest Service, and Kurt Alt with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. These two individuals have logged long hours on this exchange over the years and have been an invaluable resource for me and my staff. However, it should be clear to all that our work is not done. As the bill moves through the legislative process, I will continue working to make sure that this consolidation is responsive to the people that it serves. I look forward to working with the Montana public to finalize this exchange and to protect these important lands. Every once in a while, we are blessed to work on efforts for which we know our children will thank us. And the Gallatin Consolidation is one of those efforts. If we do not take this opportunity to address the problems that were created by the railroad land grants a century ago, we may never have another such opportunity. If we do not act now, these lands will be broken into smaller and smaller pieces--all to the detriment of our fish, wildlife, and cultural heritage. If we do not act now, it will be to the detriment of our children. However, if we succeed, our children and our grand children will be forever grateful. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important effort. And I thank my colleague from Montana for his continued hard work and cooperation on this bill. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Gallatin Land Consolidation Act of 1998. I am pleased to be joined in this introduction by my fellow members of the Montana delegation--Senator Burns and Congressman Hill. The Gallatin Act is a bipartisan bill that is the culmination of years of hard work and unheralded cooperation between the Montana delegation, local communities, conservation and user groups, and all levels of government. The consolidation of this area makes sense on many levels. In the Gallatin area, the Act will consolidate the historic checkerboard ownership that has muddied the waters of land management for years. This bill will establish logical and effective ownership and management of these lands. In the long run, consolidation will substantially reduce the cost to the Forest Service--and ultimately the taxpayer--of managing the Gallatin National Forest. By eliminating this checkerboard ownership pattern, the bill improves public access to Forest Service lands and reduces the disputes that currently arise over the proper location of property lines. Perhaps most importantly, this bill will protect these areas so that our children can enjoy them just as we do. The checkerboard ownership pattern invites sprawling subdivisions. Whether those occur across the Taylor Fork, or north in the Bangtails, the effect is the same. The Forest Service lands will be diminished in value for wildlife and recreation as every other section of land is developed. This checkerboard development would also diminish the pristine vistas that make this area so special. By consolidating these lands, we can protect recreational opportunities, wildlife herds, our famous fisheries, and the area's beautiful scenery. While consolidation benefits the entire Gallatin area, in the Taylor Fork alone, the benefits are awe-inspiring. This area is critical winter range for elk and moose and helps to sustain the largest contingent of grizzly bears in the lower forty-eight states. The conservation of the Taylor Fork, the Gallatin roaded area, and the Bangtails will allow for the continued historic uses that define the character of Montana such as hunting, grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat protection. I would like to take a minute to thank the Montana delegation for their hard work that has led to introduction of this Act. I also want to recognize and applaud the efforts of all the folks in Montana who have been instrumental in crafting this consolidation. Local conservation and wildlife groups in Bozeman and in Butte have worked long and hard to ensure that this bill protects the fisheries and wildlife that make these lands unique. In response to their suggestions, we have crafted the bill to ensure that the public will be involved in planning the timber-for-land component of this exchange. In response to their suggestions, we have also provided for a fair and public process to determine the management direction for the acquired lands, and have included a restoration program to improve the environmental health of these lands. Together, these changes will ensure that these lands will be enjoyed by sportsmen and by all Montanans for generations to come. And I would like to thank those in the timber industry who have worked to ensure that this exchange will protect Montana mills. The Independent Forest Products Association, who represents many of Montana's small mills has been ever vigilant to ensure that the Forest Service small business provisions are respected. In that vein, I would especially like to thank Al Kington, whose last-minute advice allowed us to craft the bill to provide extra protection for Montana's small mills. I would also like to thank those who have worked so hard to ensure that the Taylor Fork is protected. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has worked tirelessly to raise funds to purchase one of the sections in the Taylor Fork. Local land owners including the Kelsey's of the 9\1/4\ Circle Ranch and the Patton's of the Black Butte Ranch and the other members of the Upper Gallatin Community, helped with those efforts and have been vocal advocates for conserving these lands for all Montanans. I would also like to thank Gallatin County Commissioners Jane Jelinksi, Phil Olson and Bill Murdock. My staff met with the commissioners individually and as a group as we crafted this exchange. I appreciate their input and look forward to working with them in the future. Big Sky Lumber, the private party to this exchange has negotiated the terms of this agreement in good faith. They have provided a number of concessions to make this exchange more responsive to public concerns. These include agreements to providing public recreation access across their lands, protecting viewsheds in the Bridger Canyon area, and providing options to local landowners to allow them to purchase some of these lands following the exchange. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank two public employees, Bob Dennee with the U.S. Forest Service, and Kurt Alt with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. These two individuals have logged long hours on this exchange over the years and have been an invaluable resource for me and my staff. However, it should be clear to all that our work is not done. As the bill moves through the legislative process, I will continue working to make sure that this consolidation is responsive to the people that it serves. I look forward to working with the Montana public to finalize this exchange and to protect these important lands. Every once in a while, we are blessed to work on efforts for which we know our children will thank us. And the Gallatin Consolidation is one of those efforts. If we do not take this opportunity to address the problems that were created by the railroad land grants a century ago, we may never have another such opportunity. If we do not act now, these lands will be broken into smaller and smaller pieces--all to the detriment of our fish, wildlife, and cultural heritage. If we do not act now, it will be to the detriment of our children. However, if we succeed, our children and our grand children will be forever grateful. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important effort. And I thank my colleague from Montana for his continued hard work and cooperation on this bill. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. This side, as well.

Mr. BAUCUS. This side, as well.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I withhold my vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, may I say, as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, that the answer is yes. In fact, currently there are a good number of States--so-called ``donor'' States--which contribute more to the highway trust fund than they receive in terms of highway allocations. They receive actually less than 90 percent. There are some States down around the 80s. One, I think, is 76 percent. I am not sure about South Carolina. But the bill that passed the committee made sure that there is a floor of 90 percent--that donor States get at least 90 percent. Through the able efforts of the Senator from Virginia, and others--Virginia is often a donor State--that was then raised to 91 percent. This was one of the areas of concern that we on the committee had when we considered additional money under the Byrd-Gramm-Warner-Baucus amendment; that is, there are some States that felt they needed additional money because of high density, and others because they are donor States. There are some Western States that felt because they are public land States they should get some, too. And then the Appalachian Regional Commission felt that there was not enough money in the underlying bill. So the amendment would give a little more to Appalachia. But the long and short of it is that South Carolina, and all donor States, will, under the amendment now pending, combined with the underlying bill, receive at least 91 percent. Technically, it is 91 percent of the percentage of their contribution of the funds that are allocated, but for all intents and purposes, it is raised from 90 percent to 91 percent. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I would like to follow on the points made by the very distinguished and able chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, very generally. Several of us--Senator Chafee, myself, Senator Byrd, Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, Senator Domenici, and, most particularly, the majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, met many, many times over the last several weeks to find a fair way to distribute dollars that would be raised in the act transferring 4.3 cents of the gasoline tax to the trust fund, and then back to the States. Essentially, we came up with a program dealing first with States that had legitimate concerns as a consequence of the committee bill and then distributing the rest back to the States according to the percentage share that they were receiving under the bill so as not to give any favoritism to anyone in place. That is what we did. It is an agreement that was agreed to by all the main parties. We, at the same time, talked with many other Senators who were not part of this conversation in order to have a result that reflected fairness to regions in all parts of the country. It is also an agreement agreed to by Senator Domenici, the very, very able chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He said he would find a way with these increases to come up with a balanced budget resolution that does not exceed the caps in the budget resolution so that those who are concerned that this additional money might ``bust the budget'' may rest much more assured that is not the case. If anybody can find a way to not balance the budget and not bust the caps and get the rest of the additional money because of this amendment, certainly Senator Domenici can do that. I might add, Mr. President, that these issues are never easy. Every State feels that it should have a few more highway dollars, and every State feels that its share is not quite as fair as the share of other States. There is no magic in this. It is just a matter of looking at all the claims, all the equities, and all the differences in different parts of the country. Some States are donor States and some States are donee States. Others have completed their interstate highways later, rather than earlier. Some States have real bridge problems that need to be addressed. Some States, like in ours, in the West, next to public lands, count on a lot of tourists who visit our States. For example, in the State of Montana, there is tourism with tourists going to visit Yellowstone or Glacier Parks. Some tourists pay a little bit of Montana tax to the degree that they travel in our State. But we in Montana have to pay a lot to maintain those highways. So it is adding all of those equities together as best we possibly can. On the numbers again, just so everyone is clear, the underlying bill spends about $145 billion in contract authority over 6 years on the highway program. The amendment that we are now addressing, that is before the body, adds $6 billion for a total $171 billion in contract authority that would be spent allocated among the States. I do not want to get too technical about this, but contract authority is not exactly the same as obligation limitations or outlays, which is to say that the Budget Committee will determine what those obligation limitations are. The Appropriations Committee will then decide how much of the total it can spend. The Appropriations Committee will not be bound to spend the full $171 billion unless it wants to. The Appropriations Committee can spend a little less, if it decides in its determination that it is more appropriate because it will have to find some offsets to spend this additional money. Obviously, there will be some compelling needs with the Budget Committee with other ideas and other programs, but still with the contract authority set at $171 billion over 6 years, there is a tremendous incentive for the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee to spend--allocate outlays-- the actual dollars going to the States to build highways at a level very close to $171 billion--not entirely, but very, very close. This underlying bill, Mr. President, I remind Senators, is much, much more flexible than the current highway program. The current highway program has 11 separate categories that are pretty rigid; somewhat inflexible. They give State highway departments gray hairs sometimes, because one State's needs--say that were Arkansas--is a little bit different from another State's needs--let's say Montana or Rhode Island or Virginia or South Carolina. So we collapsed those 11 categories into 6. And the six are now much more flexible, very flexible. For example, one of the main categories is called ``surface transportation account.'' You can take money out of that for Amtrak, if you want. You can take money out of that for mass transit, if you want. You can spend more on enhancements, if you wish. There is a lot of flexibility here, flexibility that the States have, much more flexibility given to States than is the case under the current highway bill. The departments of transportation commissioners wanted this. It makes sense to the committee that much more delegation of flexibility be given to the States. For those who are concerned about the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program, CMAQ, actually there are more dollars in this bill than the current CMAQ program. CMAQ is important because we want to make sure that building more highways is consistent with improving air quality. We passed the Clean Air Act in 1991, telling States and cities that are not in attainment to undertake certain actions to bring their air quality standards into compliance. Obviously, if you build a lot more lanes, have a lot more traffic in the city, more cars, more auto emissions, sometimes it is inconsistent with the goals of air quality improvement. So, basically, the CMAQ money is there to help deal with that problem. And, I might say, in the first category, called ``interstate maintenance,'' called ``national highway system money,'' there is a restriction: You cannot build additional lanes for single occupancy. You can for HOV lanes, again to address congestion and air quality problems, but you cannot build lanes just for single-occupancy cars. Again, we are trying to merge two competing programs together. I might say, this is particularly important, this amendment, to my State of Montana. We are a big State. We don't have a lot of people. In fact, we have more miles per capita of highways than any other State in the Nation. Our State gasoline tax is the third highest in the Nation. We are paying for our highways as best as we possibly can. We are not a big industrial State. In fact, we are a relatively poor State. I am embarrassed to say this, but Montana, today, ranks 46th in the Nation for per capita income. We were 35th, 36th, not too many years ago. We are now down to 46th. It is tough. We don't have the money in Montana to pay for our roads, and this is going to go a long way. Mr. President, 90 percent of the households in Montana make multiple trips of over 100 miles each year, and that is compared with a national average of 80 percent. As I say, tourists come to Montana--actually it's 8 million visitors who come to visit our State. It is beautiful. Glacier National Park in the summertime--a lot of people come to fish and camp out and bring their families from all over the country. In the winter, of course, there is skiing, whether it's downhill, cross-country, or snowmobiling, which is very popular in our State. I will just sum up by saying, as much as it sounds like we spend a lot of money on highways, in the larger context this really is not enough. Today, the United States spends, State, local and Federal combined, about $34 billion a year on our highways. The Department of Transportation did a needs study, what is needed to be spent just to maintain the current condition of our highways, recognizing winter and summer things get beat up and so on and so forth. They concluded that about $54 billion a year should be spent just to maintain the current level of maintenance of America's highway system. So if we want to do better, we should spend, according to the Department of Transportation, maybe $70 billion a year, so as to improve our highway system, to keep up with the highway system in Germany, for example, and some other countries that spend a lot of money on their highways. Of course, their gasoline taxes are much higher than they are in the United States, but those dollars go to improve their highways. That is a decision that those countries have made. We are spending $171 billion over 6 years. That is a far cry from $60, $70 billion over 1 year. It is just an example of what other countries are doing compared with what our needs are, to explain that the current bill, as important as it is, is probably not enough if we wanted to improve upon our current system. I am going to yield the floor to whoever wants to speak here. Again, I thank all those who worked very hard on this and hope we can conclude this bill very quickly, because we have to go to conference on the House-passed bill whenever they pass their bill. By May 1, the bill has to be signed by the President. By May 1, that's when the current program expires. We were a bit derelict last year in the Senate when we did not pass the highway bill even though the program expired June 30 of last year. We got tied up on campaign finance reform, and we agreed to move the transportation bill up to one of the first orders of business in 1998. That slipped a little, but fortunately here we are. It is very important that we move expeditiously to meet our Nation's needs and satisfy Americans who want to be assured that we have the highway program in place, a solid 6-year program, so contractors can plan and State departments of transportation can plan ahead and we do not have to worry about this on-again/off again problem that we are currently facing with our program. So I hope we do move very expeditiously to pass not only this amendment but the full bill so we can get on to work with the House in the conference and pass the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I answer the point of the very distinguished Senator from Virginia that I very much do. I might remind the Senator of several facts which substantiate his point. No. 1, the current highway program is based on very dated data. It is based on the 1980 census. We even have in here the 1916 postal road formula--that is in the current law. Of course, the bill we are passing today brings it up to date.

Mr. BAUCUS. Once we get this legislation passed, we are out of the pony express era because we will have current data, data reflecting how many miles people travel in their State, lane miles, vehicle miles, et cetera. That is a formula based on the actual usage and needs in the State, which is critical. In addition to that, I might add to my distinguished friend that there were earlier separate competing bills. There was a STEP 21 bill sponsored by the Senator from Virginia; there was a STARS 2000 bill, which had a little Western influence; there was ISTEA-Plus, I think the name of it was, or the ISTEA bill which was sponsored by the northeastern Members of the Senate. With the leadership of Senator Warner we were able to bring the three bills together. We didn't favor one region over another. On a very bipartisan basis, you on your side and I on my side, along with Senator Chafee, had to come up with a bill which is fair to America, fairest to the country. We passed our bill out of committee. Even though we did the very best we could, there were still some Senators who had some concerns. Some of them were off the committee. We dealt with those concerns with this amendment on a very bipartisan basis.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly right. In fact, in a nutshell, we believe it is only fair to the American people that a portion of the gasoline tax that goes to the trust fund be allocated to the States. We took that amount, 3.45 cents, and essentially allocated it according to the provisions of the underlying bill without changing the formulas, making a couple of minor changes to accommodate some legitimate concerns of Senators. That is basically what we have done. Frankly, I cannot think of a fairer way to do it. I am also reminded there is sort of a feeling in the room, and also the feeling in the committee when we acted on this in the room where we put this together--you can tell when it's fair or not fair. Everybody was happy and felt good. It felt good. Also, in the committee, when the committee reported out this amendment, you could tell, too, it passed unanimously with Senators all around, as the Senator well knows.

Mr. BAUCUS. I was, too.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.