Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of Senator Moseley-Braun, this is an amendment to, frankly, correct an error that was made in the drafting of the Environment and Public Works Committee bill before us today. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to return to current law. When the committee drafted the bill before us, that is ISTEA II, we did not make any major changes to the current ISTEA planning provisions. The language the Senator from Illinois is reinserting should not have been deleted from the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have another amendment. This is on behalf of Senator Barbara Boxer.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. This amendment on behalf of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer would expand the current research programs to include how telecommuting and other technological and economic changes can affect travel. I believe this is a good amendment and will help fill the gap in our research programs. California certainly is a State with telecommuting and other technologies, and travel, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. We are making every effort to locate both those Senators and we are urging them to come to the floor as quickly as possible. I am unable to report at this time whether they will be able to come to the floor, but we will certainly try.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I fully concur with the agenda laid out by the distinguished chairman, and hope we accomplish it. Meanwhile, I ask unanimous consent Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as a cosponsor of the underlying amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of Senator Moynihan, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are working to try to get another amendment up.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask the chairman of the committee--and we are checking on this--if that 10 o'clock can be delayed until 10:30? There is a problem on our side with a vote at 10 o'clock.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for making that adjustment. I appreciate it very much.

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

Mr. BAUCUS. If I might ask my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, wouldn't it also be a good idea for Senators who are interested in an amendment that might be offered by Senator McConnell, with respect to the disadvantaged business enterprise, to also have their staffs come over to the floor so we can potentially begin to work on it, an agreement on that amendment? That is another amendment that is going to take some time. It is contentious. The more we start working on the provisions of the debate, the more quickly we can reach a time agreement. I guess that would be another subject we should address as well.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to discuss the President's request to provide new support for the International Monetary Fund. Last December I spent two weeks in Southeast Asia, visiting the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand and Indonesia. Two of these countries, Thailand and Indonesia, are among the nations hardest hit by the currency crisis. They, along with the Philippines and South Korea, are working with the IMF to reform their financial systems and promote an early recovery. I believe it is very much in our interest to help them through this crisis, and to provide insurance against a new one by supporting the full request for IMF replenishment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I can only but add to the remarks that have already been given, first, on the substance of the agreement and, second, in my thanks to all the Senators who have participated so intensely, so vigorously in the last week, or so. The amendment that has been agreed to, first, is a significant amendment. It is an increase of about $26 billion in contract authority over 6 years, from $145 billion to about $171 billion for highway programs, plus about $2 billion for safety programs. So the agreement is very significant. It increases highway spending by roughly 20 percent over the committee-reported bill. Now, the actual spending by the States, that is, the outlays, may be a little less than that. I hope not, but that amount is up to the Budget Committees and the Appropriations Committees. Where did we come up with this money? Well, it started with Senator Gramm's amendment last year, which transferred the 4.3-cent gasoline tax to the highway trust fund. That solved the first problem, namely putting that revenue in the Highway Trust Fund. But the second problem was that the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over highways, could not increase the contract authority in order to spend that 4.3 cents without an agreement on the budget. I am pleased that the agreement we reached today allows most of the 4.3 cents, namely the 3.45 cents that goes to the highway account, to be spent on highways. So the agreement provides for an increase from $145 billion in contract authority in the committee bill, to $171 billion. There is an additional $2 billion that goes to safety programs under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, for a total increase of $173 billion. This agreement is fair to all regions of the country. I know a lot of Senators were thinking, ``What are those Senators doing in Senator Lott's office? What have they agreed to? Aren't they just taking care of their own States? And are they being fair to us, too?'' The fact is that Senator Chafee and I made an extra effort since the committee reported the bill out last fall, to talk to Senators who have had specific concerns with the bill--and meritorious concerns, I might add. This agreement, which will be incorporated into a committee amendment tomorrow, by and large, addresses those concerns. Now, I cannot say it totally accommodates everybody. No amendment on highways can totally accommodate everybody. In fact, among the group that have been working on this agreement--Senator Gramm; myself; Senator Byrd; the leader; the chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee, certainly; and Senator Warner--each of us would have fashioned this agreement a little bit differently if left to our own devices. But when the Senators see what is in the amendment and reflect on it and on the competing interests of other Senators, I daresay they are going to realize that this is fair. I would like to also add what this agreement will mean to the economy. It will give it a big boost. The Department of Transportation statistics indicate that for every billion dollars in additional highway spending, there are 42,000 more jobs in America--a billion dollars equal 42,000 jobs. That is in addition to the benefits derived from relieving congestion and helping America's competitive place in the world with better transportation systems. Furthermore, there is investment in intelligent transportation systems, new technologies which are going to further improve our transportation capabilities. Let me add too that this agreement is within the budget. It is very important that this increase be within the budget, within budget caps. And I say that, Madam President, because this morning one of the newspapers had a headline, page 1, saying, in effect, ``Uh-oh, there goes Congress again. It is going to bust the budget.'' I appreciate the concern about busting the budget. I think all of us in the Senate do not want to break the budget caps or the provisions and the amounts that are in the budget. This amendment is consistent with the budget. We do not break the budget. It is true there is an increase in highway dollars as a consequence of this amendment, but it is also true that we are within the budget. Senator Domenici, the very able chairman of the Budget Committee was very clear: We have to live within the budget. And we do. I have the highest regard for him. He is a tough fighter. He is a very intelligent opponent. In fact, I learned a lot, Madam President, watching Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, Senator Byrd, and Senator Chafee. And what I learned is not only how tough and intelligent and fair-minded they are, but how committed they are to the legislative process. At the end of the meeting we all said, ``Hey, this is within the ballpark. It may not be perfect. Each of us would probably prefer to do it a little differently. But it's a good outcome for all.'' I am, frankly, very honored to be a part of the process. I will not belabor the point, but Winston Churchill once said that--and let me paraphrase here, Democracy, with all of its delays and inefficiencies and faint starts, is absolutely the worst form of government, except there's none better. I think that the meetings we have been having over the last week or so are a good example of that. And I only hope now that we can get this adopted, finish with the highway bill, get on to conference, and, most importantly, put it on the President's desk so that all of our work will come to fruition. I thank all Senators. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all want to protect wetlands, and we know when highways are constructed that wetlands are often in jeopardy. It is in the law that when a highway is constructed which does jeopardize a wetland, an offset must be provided for; that is, the developer or the contractor has to find some other way to enhance or improve the wetland. This is another step in that direction. It is a step toward greater efficiency, namely, where someone may enhance, develop a wetland, get credit for it, and the contractor comes along and goes to the bank which already has the credit for the wetland. It is a much more efficient process for getting the job done. I compliment the Senator from Missouri for coming up with this idea. We accept the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I would also like at this point to thank our leader, Majority Leader Trent Lott, who has worked hard, particularly in the last several weeks, with various Senators, various groups, to assure we could bring this bill, the highway bill, the ISTEA bill, up earlier than it looked like would be the case. At the end of the last session of Congress, the leader indicated he would like to bring this bill up as one of the first orders of business in 1998. Other factors intervened and made that difficult, extremely difficult. But, through his hard work, he was able to work out a way to bring this up very soon. One main reason is because of the tremendous need in our country. The current highway program expired several months ago. It expired the end of September. We don't have a highway program. We did pass a short-term extension until the end of April--it expires April 30--but there are not many weeks left between now and April 30. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to take up this bill early because it is so complex, there are so many Senators who have such interest; let alone Members of the House, the other body; let alone taking it to conference. Again, I tip my hat to the majority leader for bringing this up very quickly. The current ISTEA legislation, as I mentioned, expired the 30th of last September, and, as I mentioned, it means we are currently operating under a 6-month extension which expires May 1. I might say that is just 9 weeks from now. I might also say that after this May 1 date, States will no longer be able to obligate any Federal funds. That means we have to finish this bill very soon. By that I mean, after May 1 a State may not obligate, that is, may not contract, funds to contractors, to designers, for rights-of-way or whatever is part of the highway program. That is not true for other bills around here, other laws that are passed here in Congress as a general rule. Sometimes an authorizing program expires and the Congress appropriates dollars for the program. That is not the same for the highway program. The highway program has to be in place in order for States and highway departments to contract dollars to people in their States to build highways. Since it has been a little while since we debated this bill, I would like to just add a few points to those made by the chairman of our committee, Senator Chafee. I want to begin by saying that we have tremendous infrastructure needs in our country. It's a big, fancy term, infrastructure. It's roads, highways, it's telephone lines and power lines--all of the basic structure that is the foundation for the rest of the country to operate on. You just can't let it deteriorate. Other countries spend more on infrastructure than we do, more on a per capita basis of their gross domestic product. Japan, for example, spends about four times what we do on infrastructure per capita; Germany spends a couple of times more than we do per capita. I might say that the Germans spend a lot of money on their highway program, and a lot of it goes into research. They have researched highways so much, when you build a highway in Germany now it lasts forever, virtually. They have a whole new technology, ways to bring their highways up to date. They spend a lot more on research and development than we do. We are a bigger country. We have to spend the dollars on our roads. Once we spend more dollars on our highway programs, it will go a long way, obviously, to reduce congestion. There are more cars every year, not fewer. This will also help increase highway safety. It will mitigate the impacts of transportation on the environment. Some people think of this only as a highway bill. This isn't only a highway bill. There are lots of other parts of this bill, and one of them is it helps improve the air quality in our country. The bill will also improve our mobility, our efficiency as a nation. That's a cost of doing business. A businessman knows, a company knows, the more efficient the transportation system, the more he or she is able to reduce the costs of doing business. So it's not just pleasure. It's not just convenience. It's a matter of doing business. The bill also increases the dollars for research and for the deployment of new transportation technologies. That is very important as we move into the next millennium. Some may ask, why is transportation so important? I have given some very obvious reasons already, but let me just amplify them a little bit. Transportation really affects us every day. Certainly when we get in our cars and drive, if we get in a taxicab, or try to move from one place to another, it very much does affect our quality of life. It also means investment. It means jobs. Over 42,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion of Federal spending. Stop and think about that for a moment. Mr. President, 42,000 jobs in America are created for each $1 billion of Federal spending. And most of those jobs are good-paying jobs. They are operating engineers, or they are laborers, they are with companies making the asphalt, concrete, highway resurfacing aggregate--those are good jobs. That's income. It helps our economy. Transportation and related industries employ almost 10 million people overall each year. Again, transportation and related industries employ about 10 million people every year. Transportation is one of the largest sectors of our economy; about 11 percent of gross domestic product. There are only three other sectors that have a higher percentage of our national gross domestic product; that's housing, that's health care, and that's food. Highway ranks No. 4. In addition to the economic implications of transportation investments, we cannot overlook the impact of our quality of life. The United States has the largest transportation system in the world. We enjoy the premier system of highways: a 45,000-mile interstate system; about 4 million miles of other roads. To put that in perspective, these 4 million miles of roads in the United States would circle the Earth 157 times. Just think about it, 4 million miles of basic roads in the U.S. would circle the Earth 157 times. In a population of about 265 million, our people drive over 2.4 trillion miles each year on these highways. I was trying to think of an example of what 2.4 trillion really means. It is such a staggeringly high number. No example immediately comes to mind, but if people just stop and think a little bit, we are not talking about millions, not billions, but trillions, 2.4 trillion miles each year on our highways. Obviously, it causes us to repair them more. They get more beat up by trucks and cars. Some roads in our part of the country, Mr. President, thaw, freeze, thaw and freeze again. They get cracks in the pavement and fill with water and freeze again. They get bigger and cars and trucks pound on them. It is a problem. Not only does it cause highway repair bills for our cars, but it causes us to rattle our teeth a little bit and utter a few words about our highways, roads and potholes. The Transportation Department estimates that we need about $54 billion every year just to maintain our current highway system --$54 billion every year just to maintain. If we want to spend $74 billion a year, we could improve our system. That is the needs assessment of the Department of Transportation, $54 billion to maintain. If we want to improve our system to a level that makes sense for America, it would be about $74 billion. I must say, at all levels--State, local and Federal--we spend about $34 billion a year. So just to maintain the current level, it would cost $54 billion. If we want a premier system, it would be $74 billion. But we in America spend not $54 billion to maintain to stay even, we spend $34 billion. That is a total of Federal, State and local spending on our highway system. That means we are challenged in the Congress to come up with legislation that is very efficient, that does what it can with what we have. I think this bill does that. It is not perfect. No legislation is perfect. We are 100 Senators; we are not one. We have to compromise. Again, I think this is a good compromise. Why? First, it builds on the successes of its predecessor, the highway bill, otherwise known as ISTEA of 1991. That was authored by my good friend and colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, in the Senate. That was a landmark piece of legislation because it recognized the intermodal nature of transportation in America, much more than previous highway bills, and how connected we are for a more fluid flow of traffic and commerce and people, more of a seamless system. Our transportation system is more intermodal now. Also, State and local governments will be able to choose transportation projects that meet their diverse needs. We are one country, but we are also 50 States with many, many localities. This legislation gives local municipalities more control in making decisions for themselves. No longer are we restricted in our mode of transportation. States can build highways, transit facilities, bike paths. Different communities certainly over the last 2, 3, 4 years have been more and more interested in, the fancy term is enhancements, but basically it is more concretely things like bike paths, pedestrian walkways. Again, that is a local decision hopefully covered enough in this bill. It also continues, as I said, along that path, no pun intended. We have some improvements, and I think we will be able to have even more improvements, that is, even more dollars added to this bill in the next several days. Let me talk a little bit about what we have attempted to do to make this bill more efficient and user friendly. The current highway program, again the fancy term is ISTEA, has about 11 categories from which dollars are taken to spend on various projects, whether it is interstate maintenance or whether it is interstate construction enhancement, bridges, whatnot. We have reduced those 11 categories down to five. They are: the Interstate National Highway System, that is one category; the Surface Transportation Program; the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program; and then two other equity accounts essentially to make this all fit. Yet, we have maintained the integrity of ISTEA. What do I mean by that? Six years ago, Congress declared the end of the interstate era. Essentially, the interstate system had been completed. We are now in the process of combining the interstates with other key, most important primary highways in our country. We call that the National Highway System, or NHS. This National Highway System is a system of about 170,000 miles of roads and bridges, and they carry the vast majority of our traffic--commercial and passenger. These are the roads which provide access to rural and urban areas. They are the ones that connect farms to markets and homes to jobs. Mr. President, 170,000 miles, that is the interstate system, plus the other major highways in our country. This legislation before us today recognizes the important role of that National Highway System and its key component the interstate system. Under the bill, about $12 billion a year will be spent on the National Highway System and at least half of that, about $6 billion, will be spent to maintain the interstate system of roads and bridges. While we have eliminated the current bridge program, and I won't get into details except to say a lot of communities have abused the current bridge program; that is, they say they need all this money for bridges and then they take the money and don't spend it on bridges but spend it on something else. Obviously, we want to reduce that dodge but yet maintain the quality of our bridges. So we have folded the current bridge program into other categories. States will receive about $4.2 billion under certain bridge apportionment factors, and they will be required to spend at least what they are spending on bridges today. This will help ensure improvements in the conditions of our bridges. The second category, the Surface Transportation Program, is retained. That is a very flexible funding category. It is very important to give State highway commissions flexibility because, after all, they know what their needs are. This STP, Surface Transportation Program, provides this flexibility for all kinds of transportation projects from new construction to improvements in current highways, just to name a couple examples. In addition to this second program, Surface Transportation Program can be used for bike paths or pedestrian walkways or transit capital projects, transportation enhancement projects, rail highway crossing safety improvements, hazard elimination projects--again, a lot of flexibility to the highway commissions. We also maintain a very important program to improve air quality and reduce congestion around the country. That program is called the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, otherwise known as CMAQ. This program provides dollars to nonattainment areas so they can undertake projects to improve their air quality. What does that mean? Mr. President, as you well know, under the Clean Air Act that was passed in 1991, certain regions and certain cities of our country are ``not in attainment'' of air quality standards which they are working toward. We want to make sure that the highway program doesn't make attainment or air quality worse, because sometimes if you have a lot more traffic in a certain city that is having a hard time meeting its level of air quality, that is going to make it even more difficult for that community to meet air quality standards. We are trying to figure how to work the two together. The solution, as in last year's bill, is the CMAQ Program. States then will use these dollars on certain projects that help reduce congestion in certain areas, therefore, to help that community meet its air quality requirements. I must say, the past 6 years have demonstrated terrific benefits which CMAQ has contributed to many areas reaching attainment. It has helped areas reach attainment and helped reduce traffic flows and reduce congestion. Most important, we have updated the formulas. These factors are much more current in helping calculate what a State will receive. The bill recognizes the diverse transportation needs of our country, from large southern States to donor States to the densely populated Northeast. The bill uses transportation factors and measures the extent of the use of the highway system. Use of these factors ensures that the funding is directed to the States based upon their need for highway funding. Just as a sidelight, I must say that the last ISTEA bill, the one we are operating under, uses very dated data. It is based on the 1980 census, for example, even though it was a 1991 bill. The ISTEA program, when it was passed in 1991, used the 1980 census data. It also uses 1916 postal roads requirements. There is a lot in there that doesn't make sense for 1998 and particularly as we move into the next century. So we have used and changed the formulas, brought them up to date based upon the needs of a State. Just as transit program formulas measure ridership in the extent of an area's transit system, it only makes sense that highway formulas do the same. That is what we have done in this bill. In addition to providing funding to improve infrastructure, the bill before us today also pays for more research, more development of new transportation technologies. We are not saying we are as up to date and as fancy with new technologies on our highway system as the Internet is with all the advances in computer technology, but we are developing intelligent transportation systems--shorthand ITS technologies--that will help increase the capacity of existing transportation systems without having to add new lanes and make this more efficient with the use of technologies and increase safety on our roads with new technology. An example I might give is transponders on cars which could read the ownership and the distance a car is traveling going through a toll so you don't have to stop and pay the toll every time. In addition to that, in my State of Montana, and I know yours, too, Mr. President, in Colorado, sometimes we drive along and there are deer and elk on the road ahead, livestock in my State. Sometimes in the southern part of the State we have bison on the road, or winter range. We are developing technology to warn cars ahead of time that there is livestock on the road, there is bison, deer and elk on the road. It is not fully developed, but it is an example of the kind of things we are working on just to help improve and update our highways. Let me sum up by saying that I think this bill is very balanced. It passed the committee by a unanimous vote. It is a fair bill. It is good for the country and for our future, and I think it is very important we begin work today so we can meet our May 1 deadline. I strongly urge Senators who have amendments, and under the agreement we are operating right now, as you know, we are providing only for nonfunding amendments; that is, amendments that don't deal with money in the bill, and there are a lot of them. So I ask Senators who have those amendments to come to the floor now today because we all know that when we get up to the deadline--a weekend--that things get pretty tight. It is far better to bring your amendments up earlier than later if you want them to be considered, otherwise they will not be fully considered and will go down the drain most likely. Mr. President, I also want to mention and give tremendous credit to the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, chairman of the transportation subcommittee of our full committee. He has worked very, very hard. He has many, many responsibilities around here with everything under the Sun, frankly, yet he has diligently, with his staff, worked to come up with this compromise, and I might say, also, with tremendous grace and style and class. And it has been a real pleasure to work with the Senator from Virginia. In addition, we are here today in large part, Mr. President, because of the efforts of Senator Byrd, from West Virginia, and Senator Gramm, from Texas. There was a problem as to whether--we did not know whether we were going to get this bill up before the budget bill. But Senators Byrd and Gramm have offered an amendment. It is very simple. The amendment is not before us now. It is part of the matrix of this whole highway bill. It is a very simple amendment which says, essentially, of the 4.3 cents of Federal gasoline taxes, which we last year transferred from general revenue into the highway trust fund, that money should also be spent back on highway programs, at least that portion dedicated to highways. That is the amendment. And because of that amendment, and because of the urgency of making sure that our motorists in our States get what they pay in taxes, we are here now today, before the budget resolution is before us, and again it is Senator Byrd and Senator Gramm who in large part are responsible, in addition to the leader and Senator Warner and others as to why we are here. So I close, Mr. President, because I see my good friend, Senator Warner, standing over here ready to speak. And I thank him for what he has done.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee. We have been friends for many, many years, have been on the committee for many, many years, and here we are again with the highway bill. I compliment the chairman for his graciousness, his hard work, his dedication to public service. I think the citizens of Rhode Island already know this, but for those who may not know it, or are wondering, I would like, to them and the rest of the country, to say they could not have a finer Senator than Senator Chafee.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again make the case for comprehensive campaign finance reform. Today, the Senate has a great opportunity. The McCain-Feingold legislation is a step in the direction of campaign finance reform. Make no mistake, despite what anyone here tells you today, the American campaign finance system is broken. And the American people know it. Spending in all levels of federal campaigns--from Congress to the Senate all the way to the White House--increased from 1992 to 1996 by over $700 million. With all that money, people should have known the issues better, and had a clear sense of the candidates. They should have received a comprehensive and well funded message why their involvement in the political process was crucial. All that money helped increase voter participation, right? Wrong. Spending increased by $700 million and fewer people voted. Down from 55 percent in 1992 to 48 percent in 1996. Less than half of the American populace voted and some in Congress want to say the system is fine, everything is okay. Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is not okay. Over and over Americans tell pollsters, elected officials, and their neighbors that the system needs major repair. People are becoming more and more cynical about government. People tell me they think that Congress cares more about ``fat cat special interests in Washington'' than the concerns of middle class families like theirs. Or they tell me they think the political system is corrupt. I have simple tests on which to base my support of versions of campaign finance reform. First, it must be strong enough to encourage the majority if not all candidates for federal office to participate. Second, it must contain the spiraling cost of campaign spending in this country. Finally, and most importantly, it must control the increasing flow of undisclosed and unreported ``soft-money'' that is polluting our electoral system. McCain-Feingold is not perfect. I have a long track record of voting for bills that go further. I have voted for bills that took a closer look at PACS, increased FEC enforcement capabilities, and regulated both hard and soft money. But McCain-Feingold is a start. I support this legislation because I believe it represents the right kind of change. While not a perfect solution, it will help put our political process back where it belongs: with the people. And it will take power away from the wealthy special interests that all too often call the shots in our political system.